Carrier Strike Group
 - Question

Lord West of Spithead: To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to achieve Full Operating Capability for the Carrier Strike Group operating within a Maritime Task Group configuration by December 2023, given the requirement for 36 F-35B Lightning aircraft.

Lord Harlech: My Lords, I declare my interests as a serving Army reservist. However, I am today responding in my capacity as His Majesty’s Government’s spokesperson for defence. The definition of “full operating capability” for the carrier strike group includes 24 UK Lightnings or 36 Lightnings with partner nations when operating within a maritime task group. The programme is designed for the flexible usage necessary in a modern defence capability, including transporting a mix of fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, but the composition and size of an embarked air group in a deploying carrier will be tailored to meet the operational requirements.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Answer, but it just adds to the confusion. When on 8 September I talked about 36 aircraft being required for an FOC, I was told that the MoD did not recognise the figure of 36— which surprised me because I had written it into the requirement for the aircraft carrier when it was built. On 23 December I was told, “Ah, for a full FOC, we do need 36 of these aircraft”, so there is a certain amount of confusion. I am confused and I am meant to know about aircraft—as well as ships, I hasten to add—so I imagine the House is very confused. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions, and if he does not know, maybe he could write to me. First, is the full operating capability of the carrier strike group to be reached by December 2023, as I was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on 12 December? The other day somebody said, “No, it has changed to 2025”, and I would like to know whether it has not. Secondly, if yes, how is it possible, because we will have only 33 F35s in our inventory in this country, so we cannot possibly put 36 of them to sea? Lastly, will 809 Squadron—

Noble Lords: Too long!

Lord West of Spithead: I will stop there: I think that is enough questions. For an Army officer, the Minister has made a great start.

Lord Harlech: My Lords, there are currently 29 UK F35Bs in service. The complement of assets deployed on the carriers will be flexible. The air wing will be configured to meet defence needs for each operation or deployment.

Lord Howell of Guildford: Could my noble friend arrange with his colleagues for us to have a full report of the lessons from the last carrier strike group deployment, which I think ended in December, in the Indo-Pacific and the Far East, including the unfortunate loss of one F35B? What lessons arose from working with the Japanese navy? Once we had that report, we would be able to judge more effectively how things were going to go with the next deployment, which will of course involve the “Prince of Wales” when it is ready.

Lord Harlech: My Lords, we welcome the findings of the interim report into the loss of the F35B aircraft in 2021. While it would be inappropriate to comment fully until the final report is published, we can confirm that immediate steps are being taken after the crash to ensure the safety of earmarked flying operations.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, I will add to the list of things on which the noble Lord will write to the House, or perhaps he can tell us today. Can he say when HMS “Prince of Wales” is likely to be operational again? Are we likely to have two ships in the Queen Elizabeth class that are both seaworthy?

Lord Harlech: HMS “Prince of Wales” is expected to commence her operational programme as planned in autumn 2023. However, an issue has been identified with her port shaft. To prevent a similar defect occurring, rectification of this issue is expected to be completed prior to her planned departure. The defects with the shafts of HMS “Prince of Wales” are not believed to be a class issue, and HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will continue to undertake strike carrier duties until 2024, when HMS “Prince of Wales” will take over as strike carrier at very high readiness.

Lord Stirrup: My Lords, I did not quite catch the Minister’s Answer on the date of full operating capability. Can he reassure the House that, when it is declared, the F35B Lightning force will be fully supported by all the logistics and the depth and quantity of weapons supplies necessary for high-intensity conflict, which is certainly not the case for most of our force structure at the moment?

Lord Harlech: I understand the point that the noble and gallant Lord is making. In 2022, the number of UK F35Bs available for embarked operations to support routine carrier deployments was a squadron of up to 12 jets. This number will increase to the full operating capability for F35Bs, currently scheduled for 2025, which is up to two UK squadrons. The Royal Air Force intends to continue upgrading these aircraft in line with the wider programme and to equip them with UK weapons, including the UK-developed SPEAR Cap 3 and Meteor.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, what is the present size of the Royal Navy and is it sufficient for the purposes referred to in this Question?

Lord Harlech: My Lords, I will have to write to my noble friend on the exact size.

Lord Naseby: Will my noble friend clarify the numbers on F35Bs? The noble Lord, Lord West, clearly could not tell from the authorities whether the date was December 2023 or 2025, so will my noble friend clarify when we will be fully up to complement? Given the tense situation because of Ukraine and our role as a maritime nation, should we consider some form of lend-lease in the short term so that we are up to full complement as quickly as possible?

Lord Harlech: I understand what my noble friend is saying, but the CSG21 deployment saw the US Marine Corps F35 squadron integrated throughout, which is a tangible demonstration of the UK-US special relationship and our united efforts to ensure stability, security and freedom of the seas. A further tranche of additional F35 aircraft has been announced; once complete, it will bring the total UK fleet up to 74 aircraft.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, the original intention was that the United Kingdom should take 138 of the Lightnings. Is that still the Government’s intention?

Lord Harlech: On current plans, by the end of 2025 the UK will have procured 48 F35B Lightning aircraft, which are capable of operating from both land and the UK’s Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. As I said, the intention to buy a further tranche of additional F35B aircraft has been announced; when complete, this will bring the total UK fleet up to 74.

Lord Ricketts: My Lords, the UK and France are the two European nations with more than carrier strike capability, along with Indo-Pacific nations. We have a UK-France summit coming up on 10 March. Is there any intention to announce co-ordinated deployments of our carrier strike capabilities towards the Far East?

Lord Harlech: I would not wish to comment on specific locations of operations for reasons that I am sure the noble Lord would understand. I can say that we are always training and working with NATO and other allied partners.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: When will the refit of HMS “Vanguard” that has been going on since 2015 be finished? It was recently discovered—just before the engines were about to be fired up, as it were—that Babcock’s workers had superglued bolts on it instead of replacing them. How much has that put back the deployment of this ship?

Lord Harlech: The noble Lord is correct that, as part of a planned inspection, a defect was found. It was promptly reported and fixed. In light of this issue, my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary spoke directly with the chief executive office of Babcock to seek assurances about future work. It is UK policy that we do not comment on specific details of submarine activity or operations; however, I can confirm that there were no nuclear safety implications or risks associated with the identified defect at any point.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, it has been reported this morning that the expected update of the integrated review—which may address the concerns around the carrier strike group—may now be delayed because the initial draft failed to reflect the transformed security environment in Europe. Was that not the main reason for it being updated or are these reports wrong?

Lord Harlech: As your Lordships are aware, the integrated review refresh is an ongoing process and it would not be appropriate for me to prejudge the outcome.

Children: Bereavement Support in Schools
 - Question

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of support for bereaved children in schools.

Baroness Barran: My Lords, losing a loved one is a devastating loss for any child. Schools can play an essential role in supporting a pupil through grief and preventing longer-term emotional distress by providing effective pastoral support and ensuring there is a supportive school culture. It is for individual schools to decide what pastoral support each pupil needs. We have invested £10 million in senior mental health leads training to help schools put informed support in place, drawing on specialists and working with families as needed.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I thank the Minister for that helpful and sympathetic reply. There is clearly a lot of good practice. But recent research has found that bereavement support in primary schools is varied and inconsistent. My own family experience reinforces that. There are long waiting times for counselling, and how schools deal with anticipatory grief is particularly neglected. One in every 29 children will be bereaved of a parent: that is one in every classroom. The research shows that teachers and schools are crying out for guidance and training. Is it not time for DfE to have national bereavement policy, including a mandatory requirement for each school to have such a policy? Will the Minister agree to meet the Ruth Strauss Foundation and other charities who are doing such formative work on this issue?

Baroness Barran: The noble Baroness will be aware that there is a cross-government bereavement working group. This issue, as the noble Baroness understands well, cuts across both education and health, as well as other government departments—hence our cross-government group. I would be delighted to meet with the Ruth Strauss Foundation and hear about its work. This is something we take extremely seriously, hence our focus on ensuring that schools provide a truly compassionate culture for whatever is going on for the children within them.

Lord Storey: One hundred children every day are bereaved of a parent. From my own experience, I remember my two nephews losing their dad when they were seven and nine. There was little to no support from their primary school, and that is quite endemic to the problem we now face. Would the Minister agree that we need, as we have heard, every school to have a policy on bereavement, staff to have training on bereavement and, thirdly, a commitment to every school having full-time or part-time professional mental health support in the school?

Baroness Barran: I am sorry to hear of the noble Lord’s nephews’ personal experience of this. Of course, many of us in this House have been touched in different ways by the issues raised by the noble Baroness’s Question. The Government are doing many of the things the noble Lord points to. I mentioned training; every state school is being offered a grant, as are colleges, to train a senior mental health lead so that we have an effective response to these issues. Of course, education staff are not mental health staff in general, and nor are they bereavement or trauma specialists, but they are very well placed to observe the behaviour of children day to day and respond to that.

Lord Lexden: Are the improvements to training to which my noble friend referred being overseen by officials at the highest level, with just the right kind of approach to these deeply sensitive and important matters?

Baroness Barran: I am happy to share with my noble friend in a letter more detail of the training, but it is something the department takes extremely seriously.

Baroness Blower: My Lords, when I was still teaching, I was privileged to be able to attend bereavement training in order to be able to deal with that in primary schools—although I was part of a peripatetic team rather than attached to an individual school. Can the Minister say whether she believes that, actually, there is a need for peripatetic teams? Not all teachers will be able to be trained to the same level and, increasingly, they are trained in schools where the training might be of a variable standard.

Baroness Barran: I do not think we would want to be prescriptive about peripatetic teams. The point the noble Baroness makes is that schools need to be aware of what resources are available in their communities to support a range of issues, including bereavement. Your Lordships have focused a lot, rightly, on primary school, but I should add that the department is extending the early years professional development programme, with the aim of reaching up to 10,000 early years practitioners. That includes a module developed in partnership with the Anna Freud Centre, which allows them to identify acute stress and trauma in the children in their care.

Lord McLoughlin: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that every case will be different as to how this comes about? While certain guidelines from the centre would be useful, it is absolutely essential that there is no straitjacket for how schools feel they should  act on this particular subject, and that there is discretion allowed, so that head teachers and teachers can best judge how to approach each individual case, which will not be identical.

Baroness Barran: My noble friend is spot on and has probably put the Government’s position rather more eloquently than I have. It is critical that the school creates a culture where children feel able to talk about what has happened to them and what their feelings are, and that it can use its discretion and judgment in responding to that and accessing specialist resources. The Government are supporting this through our work, and signposting to the Childhood Bereavement Network, Hope Again and a wide range of other resources.

Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: My Lords, the Church of England educates over 1 million children in its schools and has produced highly accessible guidance and training for its school leaders on supporting students and families through grief, bereavement and loss. Recognising in particular the barriers to learning and flourishing that trauma may cause, would the Minister meet with the Church of England’s education team to see whether these outstanding resources could in fact help other students, teachers and families across the country?

Baroness Barran: I thank the right reverend Prelate for the invitation; I would be delighted to meet with them.

Baroness Wilcox of Newport: My Lords, as the Minister will know, the Government’s £8 million Wellbeing for Education Return training programme was launched in 2020, with the aim of helping children to process the impacts of the pandemic. What is the Government’s assessment of equality of access to this programme between deprived and affluent areas across the United Kingdom?

Baroness Barran: I do not have the breakdown that the noble Baroness refers to. She referred to the 2020 return programme, which was followed by the recovery programme in 2021. Looking at those two years, I am aware that 14,000 schools and colleges, out of roughly 22,000 nationally, got those resources.

Lord Laming: My Lords, the Minister well understands that teachers are faced with a range of very human situations. Could she use her good offices to ensure that Ofsted inspections place an emphasis not just on learning but on the pastoral responsibilities that schools have, particularly in these very emotionally disturbing situations?

Baroness Barran: I hear what the noble Lord says. I am slightly surprised, because I think there has been a real focus by Ofsted on safeguarding in its broadest sense and the important pastoral role that schools provide—but I will, of course, take what he says back.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, the noble Baroness’s answers, and indeed the questions, have focused, understandably, on the impact on individual  bereaved children. What is the Government’s view of the impact on the classes of which those children are part? Very often, the distress exhibited by one child can be transmitted to others, who often do not fully understand what they are witnessing and sometimes have great difficulty in managing it.

Baroness Barran: The noble Baroness makes a good point. Indeed, in thinking about this, I was also thinking about situations which affect the whole class—for example, where a member of the class tragically is killed. The very valid point she raised also affects teachers, not just pupils. I come back to the fact that schools need to implement a strong, pastoral approach across their school community, balancing their own insight and the relationships and trust they have with pupils and colleagues with the resources in their local community and the national resources that we signpost and provide.

Police Misconduct Cases
 - Question

Lord Lexden: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the work of legally qualified chairs in police misconduct cases.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, the Government have launched a review into the process of police officer dismissals to ensure that the system is fair and effective and removes those who are not fit to serve. This will include an assessment of the composition of misconduct panels, including the impact of the role of legally qualified chairs.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, is it not astonishing and deeply disturbing that in Cleveland, a legally qualified chair whose name is unknown to the public is holding up a gross misconduct hearing, announced in August 2021, at which Mike Veale, the discredited policeman who besmirched the reputation of Sir Edward Heath, will finally be called to account? When asked about this, Ministers say that an anonymous chair may delay proceedings when it is in the interests of justice to do so. They also say that it would be inappropriate to comment further since proceedings are ongoing. Proceedings are not ongoing—they have not even started. How can it possibly be in the interests of justice to delay indefinitely this hearing while giving no explanation at all as to the reasons? The Home Office will surely have made full inquiries about this matter since I have raised it several times. What does my noble friend have to say about the extraordinary state of affairs in Cleveland?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I am afraid that I will have to go over old ground. The arrangements for the misconduct hearing of the former chief constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland police and crime commissioner, and the management of the hearing itself is the responsibility of the independent  legally qualified chair appointed to it. My noble friend is right that legally qualified chairs must commence a hearing within 100 days of an officer being provided with a notice referring them to proceedings, but this period may be extended when a legally qualified chair considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so. I am afraid that I will have to repeat the old mantra that it would be inappropriate to comment further while these proceedings remain ongoing.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, given that the Leicestershire PCC, Mr Matthews, refused the chair of the panel’s request for Mr Veale to be interviewed by the panel, as the law demands he should be, what is HMG’s view of Mr Veale’s resignation last week from his post as interim chief executive officer of the OPCC?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, the appointment of staff is a matter for police and crime commissioners but, as the noble Lord is right to point out, they are required by legislation to seek the views of their police and crime panel when appointing to senior positions within their office. I note Mr Veale’s resignation but the Home Office has no role in such appointments and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter directly.

Lord German: My Lords, in matters of police misconduct, there is a delicate balance to be drawn between local accountability and local flexibility on the one hand and consistency in dealing with these cases on the other. Does the Minister agree with the inspectorate that there is a need to standardise decision-making processes when dealing with misconduct, and do the Government accept all the recommendations contained in the An Inspection of Vetting, Misconduct, and Misogyny in the Police Service report?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, on the latter point, I think the police forces have accepted all the recommendations. As regards the consistency of decision-making, that is one of the things that the dismissal review panel is going to consider. The first term of reference is to:
“Understand the consistency of decision-making at both hearings and accelerated hearings”,
so the answer is yes.

Viscount Hailsham: My Lords, I declare an interest as a legal assessor for regulatory panels. My noble friend will know that Parliament has established an independent regulatory panel in respect of almost every profession that exists. Those regulatory panels have the power to make interim orders of conditions and suspension when appropriate, and they can very often make their interim order within a few days of the referral of the complaint. Should the police not consider that model?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, again, I refer my noble friend back to the fact that the dismissal review is ongoing. It would be foolish of me to pre-empt the outcome of the review’s findings.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in the circumstances of the case raised by the noble Lord, is the Minister saying, in effect, that there are absolutely no circumstances under which the Home Office will intervene, even though this case is continuing not to be dealt with, month after month? He will know that under Section 40 of the Police Act 1996, the Home Secretary can intervene if a PCC is not being effective. Why will the Home Secretary not intervene?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, as I say, I am unable to comment on ongoing cases. I know that irritates the House and I apologise for doing so, but there are specific circumstances which make me unable to comment.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is now almost two and a half years since the Independent Office for Police Conduct found sufficient evidence for there to be a misconduct hearing. I see that the Government cannot intervene in police conduct itself but will they encourage the police to speed up the handling of these misconduct hearings, which have now drifted on for so long and so inadequately?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My noble friend makes an extremely good point. I certainly encourage them to speed this up. Having said that, this is a particular case. It is considered to be in the interests of justice for the legally qualified chair to go beyond the normal 100 days. Beyond that, I cannot go.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, twice said that the legally qualified chair in this case was anonymous. That is not universally the case. In many other forces, legally qualified chairs are named. Indeed, proceedings describe who is on the panel. Why is Cleveland different?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I do not know.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, can my noble friend find out and tell the House? Does he not realise that every answer that he has given in this stonewalling performance has been utterly unsatisfactory? He has made the Home Office seem completely impotent. At the very least, we need to know who this anonymous man or woman is.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I thank my noble friend for not accusing me this week of being incompetent, at least. I will do my very best to find out the answer to that question.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, would the Minister like to address the question asked by my noble friend Lord Hunt? It was not about an ongoing investigation. It was a point of principle. Does he accept that there are circumstances under which the Home Secretary can carry out an investigation under the statutory powers already available? As a matter of principle, does he accept that?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: As a matter of principle, yes, I do.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Do the Government agree that the chairmen and members of police misconduct panels should never be open to any suggestion of conflict of interest arising from their previous careers?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Yes, of course I accept that.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, is it not possible for the Secretary of State to carry out the implementation of what is being delayed? Why is it not being done now?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I am unable to comment on ongoing cases.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as past chairman of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation. None of this would have happened if the disgraced policeman, Mike Veale, had faced an independent inquiry into his witch hunt against the late Sir Edward Heath, as this House has repeatedly demanded. The Home Office keeps referring to all these inquiries, but they were all carried out by the police themselves, marking their own homework, and are no substitute for a judge-led review of how the good name of a distinguished former Prime Minister was deliberately besmirched—at great cost to the taxpayer.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I thank my noble friend. He makes some extremely good points, which I will take back.

Cancer Therapies Access
 - Question

Lord Aberdare: To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the access to minimally invasive cancer therapies.

Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my registered interest as a trustee of the UK Focused Ultrasound Foundation.

Lord Evans of Rainow: NHS England’s specialised commissioning team has been undertaking work to expand the number of providers offering minimally invasive cancer therapies such as selective internal radiation therapy. The market engagement and prior information notice aspects of this have now been completed, with regional teams now putting in place the necessary contractual arrangements with NHS trusts.

Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and welcome him to the Dispatch Box. Minimally invasive cancer therapies such as focused ultrasound, SIRT, which he mentioned, cryoablation and radioligand therapy, offer significant benefits both to patients to the NHS: faster recovery times; reduced pain; fewer side effects; and less pressure on NHS facilities and staff. How will the 10-year cancer plan  reflect the need to increase awareness of these therapies among patients and clinicians and increase access to them? Will the Government’s proposed workforce plan ensure the availability of enough interventional radiologists to deliver MICTs at the scale needed?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord and the work that he has done on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Minimally Invasive Cancer Therapies. In 2022-23, Health Education England is continuing to take forward priorities identified in the cancer workforce plan phase 1 and is investing an additional £50 million in 2022-23 to further expand the cancer and diagnosis workforce. Spending plans for individual budgets in 2023-24 to 2024-25 inclusive are subject to a detailed financial planning exercise and will be finalised in due course.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has already pointed out, interventional radiologists are essential to being able to provide minimally invasive cancer therapies. What is the Minister’s response to the Royal College of Radiologists’ 2021 census report, which painted a picture of growing concerns about the availability of interventional radiologists, as supply is not keeping up with demand? Will this particular shortage also be covered in the workforce plan? We will keep going on about the plan until we see it.

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, NHS England commissions selective internal radiation therapy as a treatment of choice for patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in accordance with technology appraisals and metastatic colorectal cancer in accordance with the NHS England clinical commissioning policy. It should be noted that the market engagement and prior information notice process permitted any NHS trust that hosts a specialist liver service and multidisciplinary team to put themselves forward, either independently or in partnership with other NHS trusts.

Lord Patel: My Lords, Cancer Research UK published a report last week that shows that, by 2040, we will have half a million new cases of cancer. Considering that the UK has the worst record on cancer outcomes in western Europe and that we are not likely to meet the Government’s target of diagnosing 75% of new cancers at stage 1 or 2, why did the Minister in the other place state that the Government are to abandon the 10-year cancer plan, particularly when the previous Secretary of State wanted a new plan which was more challenging and robust?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, improving early diagnosis of cancer is a priority for the NHS. That is why one of the core ambitions of the NHS’s long-term plan is to diagnose 75% of cancers at stage 1 or 2 by 2028. November 2022 saw the highest number of urgent GP referrals for cancer ever, with nearly 265,000 patients referred, representing 125% of November 2019 levels on a per working day basis, compared to the pandemic low of 80,000 in April 2020. It is a priority of this Government for the NHS.

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford: My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Genomics England. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the announcement of the UK cancer vaccine launchpad? It aims to rapidly identify large numbers of cancer patients who could be eligible for trials and to explore the potential of cancer vaccines among multiple types of cancer. This is vital research if we want to have any hope of identifying and tackling the challenges mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.

Lord Evans of Rainow: My noble friend raises a very good point. One in two of us will develop cancer in the future, so we need to explore all therapies or vaccines wherever possible.

Baroness Wheeler: My Lords, Cancer Research UK has shown that the annual rate of cancer diagnosis will increase by one-third over the next two decades, rising to nearly half a million. It takes 15 years to train an oncologist, pathologist or surgeon. In the light of previous questions, will the Minister assure the House that the long-awaited NHS workforce plan, when it is finally published, will address these particular shortages? How will the workforce plan dovetail with the also promised major conditions strategy, which the Government have announced that they are now putting in place of the 10-year cancer strategy, as we previously heard, which itself was long overdue?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that the new major conditions strategy will set out a strong and coherent policy agenda that sets out a shift to integrate whole-person care. Interventions set out in the strategy will aim to alleviate pressure on the health system as well as support the Government’s objective of increasing healthy-life expectancy and reducing ill-health-related labour market inactivity. We will cover the patient pathway from prevention to treatment and set out the standards patients should expect in the short term and over a five-year lifetime. Many stakeholders have already responded to the Government’s call for evidence on cancer.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, we now know that there are drugs that attack cancer cells directly, without damaging the surrounding tissue. These literally non-invasive treatments are available to some, but can the Minister assure the House that these drugs are now available to every trust throughout the country?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, I do not have a specific answer to that question, but I can certainly respond in writing.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, behind this Question lies an even more worrying fact, which is that the NHS is very, very slow to adopt new medicines and new treatments. Does the Minister accept that our very poor outcomes for cancer in relation to many OECD countries are partly down to this lack of adoption of proven new treatments? What are the Government doing to turn this around?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, looking ahead, a number of specialised services will be delegated to integrated care boards, which in turn will want to work with and through local cancer alliances to plan and organise access to cancer services, including specialised services such as SIRT and non-specialised services such as highly intensive focused ultrasound. Following delegation, NHS England will remain the accountable commissioner for all prescribed specialised services and will continue to determine national standards, including new treatments.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I am sorry to come back, but the Minister did not answer my question, which was: why are the Government abandoning the 10-year cancer plan? Is it to be replaced with a new plan, or is it totally abandoned?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, we have not abandoned anything. It is all part of the Government’s strategy to improve cancer outcomes.

Turkey: Earthquake Relief
 - Private Notice Question

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Asked by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what immediate assistance with lifesaving, recovery and long term rebuilding and reconstruction efforts they are offering to the Government of Turkey and non-governmental organisations following recent earthquakes.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all in your Lordships’ House in offering condolences to all those impacted and affected by this tragedy in Turkey and Syria. Our thoughts and prayers are with all. Our embassy in Ankara is in direct contact with Turkish authorities and is supporting British nationals. We are also in contact with British humanitarian workers in Syria. I can share with your Lordships that the United Kingdom is sending immediate support to Turkey, including a team of 76 search and rescue specialists as part of our international search and rescue team. They are being dispatched to Turkey as I speak. They will have equipment and rescue dogs. In Syria, the UK aid-funded White Helmets have also been mobilised, and we are working closely with our UN partners to understand the direct impact and options.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the Minister for his helpful response. I am sure we all share in sending condolences to those who have lost their lives and their relatives. However, this is not just one but two of the strongest earthquakes ever in an area that is already coping with hundreds of thousands of refugees, so we need to do a great deal. I am glad to hear that the immediate rescue effort has been mobilised. Can the Minister tell us which NGOs are involved with that? When will they  leave the United Kingdom for Turkey? What kind of help are they going to give? Will there be specialised equipment as well as men? Will we provide dogs or other assistance? Can he say what skills and equipment we are able to provide?
This is going to be a huge effort. It needs international support from every organisation and every country. Everything that we can do we should be doing. We cannot overestimate the devastation that has taken place, the death and destruction in Turkey. I hope that we will get a clear assurance that the United Kingdom Government, irrespective of the cuts we have sadly seen in the development budget, will make sure that as much money and help are available to Turkey as we can give.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. He asked some specific questions. We are working directly with the United Nations. I hope to speak to the UN co-ordinator, Mohamed Haji, later today within the context of Syria, but communications are quite challenging, certainly in Syria. The noble Lord is right to ask what we have deployed immediately. A UK international search and rescue team will be deployed today and commence life-saving activity within the critical 72 hours. They will depart on a charter flight from Birmingham at 1800 today and will arrive in Turkey by 2300 UK time tonight. They are working in a co-ordinated fashion with the co-ordinating agency in Turkey. I am sure all noble Lords appreciate that it is an evolving situation. Even as I was leaving the Foreign Office to answer this Question, tragically we saw the reported casualty figure reach 2,000—or a tad just under—and this is after just a few hours. The noble Lord is correct that there were two earthquakes, one of 7.8 magnitude followed by one of 7.5 magnitude, impacting not just Syria and Turkey but further afield, including in Israel and the OPTs.
I assure the noble Lord that, as my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said, we stand with Turkey and the agencies working on the ground, and, importantly, with the UN within the context of Syria, to make sure that what is required immediately and in the medium and long term can be addressed directly. I assure the noble Lord that, as more details evolve, I shall be happy to update your Lordships’ House accordingly.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, the Minister mentioned one concern, which is the efforts to get humanitarian aid across the Turkish border to Syria. Syria obviously is in a particularly difficult situation. Will he tell us what steps the Government are taking to support the safe delivery of aid into Syria over the next few days and how they will support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2672 during recovery, which facilitates cross-border aid going into Syria?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, within the context of the United Nations, first and foremost we have been working to broaden the scope of humanitarian corridors into Syria. It is regrettable that because of Russia’s actions  that has not been possible. However, we will continue to work within the parameters and restrictions that apply. I assure the noble Lord that, for example, with the White Helmets, we are already mobilising additional funding and we are in direct contact with them. Notwithstanding the issues and challenges posed, I hope to speak with their representative, Raed Al Saleh’s deputy, in the coming hours to be updated on what is required. The noble Lord will also be aware that within north-west Syria we are working with key NGOs. For example, we have been equipping key NGOs on the ground to ensure that volunteers are already trained to deal with the kind of tragedy that has unfolded. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, this tragedy took place where plates meet. It is a one-in-100-year event, and it happened this morning.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie: My Lords, the reports and pictures of this earthquake show it to be truly apocalyptic, on a scale that is probably unprecedented in our lifetime. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the response we have made. In the past, the UK had the capacity to provide a very fast, comprehensive response and to co-ordinate international action. Do we still have that capacity, and are we able to provide leadership to get to people quickly so that we can save lives and ensure that needless, endless suffering can be relieved before it is too late?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord—and our response reflects this—that we have the specialists required and they have been mobilised very quickly. The noble Lord has raised the importance of co-ordination on the ground. We are working directly with the Turkish authorities, the co-ordinating body and our international partners to ensure that we identify and address what is required immediately. As I am sure the noble Lord has picked up, we were the first of seven or eight countries to respond directly; messages have also been relayed to the Turkish Government at the highest level.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, having travelled in the areas around south-east Turkey that have been affected, to the east of Diyarbakır into Mardin and Tur Abdin, where the ancient Assyrian and Chaldean communities are, I would ask the Minister not to lose sight of those very vulnerable people who are not in the towns and cities but are also deeply affected by the appalling events that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has described. Can the Minister tell us two things? First, in such circumstances, the UK Disasters Emergency Committee usually co-ordinates the giving of donations. Is that happening at the moment, and will the UK Government provide match funding for every penny and pound generously given by UK citizens? Secondly, given the sanctions that have been imposed on Syria, to which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, alluded, will we ensure that humanitarian needs are met regardless of any sanctions?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, of course, any sanction applied has provision for humanitarian support; we will certainly ensure that continues to happen. On the  noble Lord’s earlier point about vulnerable communities, the challenges are of course immense. As we look at the situation in Turkey as pointed out by the noble Lord, and towards Syria—Aleppo has been impacted in a devastating way notwithstanding the devastation it had already suffered—we will seek to prioritise the distribution of support accordingly. However, it needs a level of co-ordination; that is why I have alluded to what we are doing both with the aid agencies on the ground in Turkey and with the White Helmets. On the DEC, I assure the noble Lord that one of the last actions I left for the team as I departed the Foreign Office was a full submission on the very points that the noble Lord has raised. I do not have those details with me, as this has been a very fast-evolving situation, but that is high up my agenda; I will update the House accordingly.

Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, it is very good news that the Minister has responded as he has so far. Do I take it for granted that the Royal Auxiliary reserves, who are wonderful people trained specifically for operations like this, are totally involved? Also, do we intend to send out a field hospital, set up with highly trained people, which would be of great use?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we are looking to ensure a whole-of-government response, so that every asset will be provided to the Turkish Government, as well as to assist on the ground in Syria. As to additional support, those details are being finalised. As the requirements are made clear to us, we will deploy what is necessary to ensure that the objectives of the relief efforts can be met.

Baroness Hussein-Ece: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us an update. He will appreciate that the magnitude of this earthquake is truly devastating and terrifying. Many in the Turkish diaspora in this country—I include myself—are personally affected by this tragedy. What support can the Government give to the diaspora here, who are desperately trying to find out what has happened to their family and friends in Turkey? Communications are hampered by the sheer scale of this disaster and the terrible weather. People are under many feet of snow; 10 densely populated cities have been affected. The diaspora here are desperate for news. What support can the Government give to the communities here trying to get more information?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I extend my condolences to the British-Turkish diaspora here, of which the noble Baroness is an exemplary part. She is using her good offices, and I welcome her direct advice and input on what more can be done. I will get back to her with further details as they evolve. My understanding is that in Turkey itself, certainly in the 10 cities impacted, the communications are still stood up and we are able to get information both in and out, but we will look at how we can strengthen some of the communication channels. If the noble Baroness can identify particular problems being encountered, and if they are in the scope of the FCDO or other government departments, we will look to assist.

Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, what are we doing about aerial damage assessments? Now that we are not in the EU, I presume that we do not have access to the Copernicus satellite. How are we coping with that? Are we co-ordinating with European neighbours?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the EU has also mobilised to this effect. I assure the noble Earl that, as I said earlier, we are co-ordinating with all our international partners and, importantly, that includes members of the EU.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the damage has been considerable in Diyarbakır in Turkey, which I have previously visited. It is right on the border with Iran. Have there been any reports of damage in Iran? If so, are we helping them?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, specifically on Iran, I will have to update the noble Lord. I am aware that the impacts have been felt further afield, particularly in parts of the Middle East. Thankfully, even in places such as Lebanon, which is a very fragile country at the moment, the impact has been limited, but we are continuing to monitor the situation. Tragically, the earthquake hit at 4 am, which was probably the worst time. I have been updated on the net effect on buildings and how they folded—what I believe is called the pancake effect, where they just collapse on each other. If that impact were felt further afield in places such as Lebanon, which is extremely fragile, it would be devastating. I will update noble Lords as details emerge on what is an evolving situation.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere: My Lords, some years ago, I worked in a refugee camp along the Euphrates, very close to the epicentre. It is impossible not to be moved by the brisk, unfussy and uncomplaining way in which Turkey has handled the arrival of millions of Syrian refugees into its territory. The United Kingdom is perhaps the most engaged supporter of Syrian refugees on the borders of Syria. Can we leverage that status and transfer our aid to the Syrians who are now fleeing this second devastation?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, my noble friend is correct that the UK has been and is the third-largest bilateral donor to the Syrian crisis, having committed over £3.8 billion to date, our largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis. We are supporting Turkey, Lebanon and indeed Jordan when it comes to the issue of Syrian refugees. The impact of those seeking to leave Syria from this devastation is not yet clear, but we stand ready to help those within Syria and Turkey with the support that they need. As I said, and I am sure noble Lords appreciate this, it is a situation that occurred this morning. We have responded immediately—as required—and in a co-ordinated fashion to the information that we have received, and we will continue to do so.

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill
 - First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Carer’s Leave Bill
 - First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
 - First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House
 - Motion to Agree

The Lord True: Moved by The Lord True
That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with on Monday 6 February to enable a motion to approve the Energy Bills Support Scheme and Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 to be moved, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instrument has been laid before the House.
Motion agreed.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code H) Order 2023
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 December 2022 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 31 January
Motion agreed.

Energy Bills Support Scheme and Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the Regulations laid before the House on 11 January be approved.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 January
Motion agreed.

Environmental Improvement Plan 2023
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 1 February.
“I would like to update the House on the next steps that the Government are taking to help nature recover through our new environmental improvement plan. It is a delivery plan setting out how we will achieve our ambitious, stretching environmental targets, the most critical of which is to halt the decline of nature by the end of this decade. We can and must achieve that, both here in the UK and globally.
We are already under way. In this Government’s first 100 days, we have already delivered: legally binding targets to halt nature’s decline, clean up our air and rivers and support a circular economy; playing an instrumental role in a new global agreement for nature at the UN nature summit, COP 15; enacting the legal duty on government, national and local, to consider biodiversity; publishing our environment principles policy statement; setting out in detail our transformational farming schemes with the full range of actions we will pay farmers and land managers to do to restore nature; announcing that we will ban the most commonly littered single-use plastic items from October 2023; agreeing to enact mandatory sustainable urban drainage systems for new development, which will reduce the risk of surface water flooding and pollution; putting in place the plant biosecurity strategy for Great Britain, a five-year vision for plant health to protect native species, with plants providing an annual value of £15.7 billion to the UK; and agreeing with the devolved Administrations our approach to managing fisheries. There is much more I could add.
Nature is a crucial part of our islands’ story and our shared future. We know what is special with our rare habitats and our iconic species, and we also know the pressures it is under. We rely on our natural capital for a secure supply of food, for clean air, and for clean water, as well as for leisure and genuine joy. However, nature has been taken for granted for too long and used freely as a resource with little thought for the consequences. We have to reverse that and respect nature.
Seventy years ago, people were waking up to the devastation of the great flood of 1953, in which more than 300 people died, reminding us that the full force of nature can bring us challenges. We took action then and it is why we have continued to invest billions of pounds in protecting people’s homes and in better protecting more than 100,000 local businesses to safeguard around 100,000 jobs. However, nature can also help us to tackle some of our great challenges, so we need to help protect nature too. Undoubtedly and understandably, the pandemic set us back in some areas, as we responded to the emergency at hand. A silver lining to that experience, if any is to be had, was the opportunity for us to reconnect with nature, and I am particularly pleased by our pledge in this plan to bring access to a green or blue space within a 15-minute walk of everyone’s home, be that parks, canals, rivers, countryside or coast.
Our focus is on picking up the pace and scaling up at home, and around the world, and that is why we are putting nature top of the international agenda as well. We brought nature into the heart of our collective response to climate change under our presidency of COP 26 in Glasgow. At COP 27 the Prime Minister said that
‘there is no solution to climate change without protecting and restoring nature’.
The House may have heard me extol the marvel of mangroves as the ultimate example of how investing in nature is an essential, effective and cost-effective way to take on a multitude of challenges. The key achievement of 2022 was the agreement reached at the UN nature summit, the Convention on Biological Diversity, COP 15, in Montreal.
I will level with the House: there is much, much more to do to restore the natural world. Some of the challenges are not always so easy or so quick to fix as we might all hope, yet I assure honourable Members that with our new legal duty to consider biodiversity, guided by our environmental principles policy, we are embedding nature in the heart of every decision that government will take for the long haul. We have a plan for the whole of government to support this national endeavour and we have already started the journey with a great many improvements.
We are replacing the EU’s bureaucratic common agricultural policy, which did so little for farmers or nature, and rewarding our farmers for taking action to help nature retain and regain good health, reduce emissions and produce food sustainably. Those things are absolutely symbiotic and we are leading the way in making this essential transition. We have cleaner air, with major decreases in all five major pollutants. Emissions of fine particulate matter, PM2.5, the most damaging pollutant to human health, decreased by 18% between 2010 and 2020. I want our air to be even cleaner. That is why we are working with farmers to tackle ammonia emissions.
Councils ask for a lot of powers, but I need them to use the powers they already have, including on tackling litter and fly-tipping, rather than just asking for more. I will be publishing what they are doing and seeking to share best practice across the country.
We are accelerating the rate of tree planting. The Forestry Commission will start growing its estate and increase planting, fulfilling its original statutory obligation to help to rejuvenate the forestry and timber industry. We have strengthened the financial support through our environmental land management schemes, and we will continue to promote urban tree planting so that children everywhere can enjoy their local woods.
On the chemical status of our water bodies, the science and modelling are clear that it will take decades to recover and heal completely, but we are keeping a spotlight on water quality and getting industry to clean up its act. We are restoring 400 miles of river through the first round of landscape recovery projects and establishing 3,000 hectares of new woodlands along England’s rivers, as well as doubling funding available for the catchment-sensitive farming programme to £30 million in each of the next three years, to cover all farmland in England. We have already seen a huge improvement in our bathing waters. Last year, nearly three in four beaches were deemed excellent—only about half of them were back in 2010—but I share people’s concern about sewage in our waters. That is why we, a Conservative Government, turned on the monitoring, and why we are holding industry to account on fixing this issue. Through our storm overflows discharge reduction plan, we are requiring water companies to deliver their largest ever environmental infrastructure investment: an estimated £56 billion of capital investment over 25 years. We have set clear expectations on improvements, on which we will track performance. The next formal review will be in 2027, so if we can go further and faster, that is exactly what we will do.
This issue remains an international endeavour as well. We have a globally recognised track record of action, helping communities protect and restore their national treasures. Reinforced by our science expertise and financial support, we are helping nature around the world. That is the right thing to do and it is absolutely in our interests as well. Having committed to doubling UK international climate finance to £11.6 billion, and to spending at least £3 billion of that on nature, we are building on decades of action, backing efforts to take on the whole host of threats that now face the world’s flora and fauna well beyond climate change alone. We are doing that through the Blue Belt programme, protecting an area of ocean larger than India around our biodiverse overseas territories; through our world-renowned £39 million Darwin Initiative; and through the illegal wildlife trade challenge fund. We are ploughing all that expertise and experience into our newly established £500 million blue planet fund, and our £100 million biodiverse landscapes fund, to help some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities restore, protect and connect globally important but fragile habitats.
I am so proud that the UK is leading, co-leading and actively supporting the global coalitions that are committed to securing the maximum possible ambition and achieving the greatest possible impact on everything from taking on the scourge of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, to persuading countries to agree a new, legally binding global treaty to end plastic pollution  by 2040, to supporting efforts to establish a global gold standard for taking nature into account across our economies.
I could spend hours talking about nature, about our mission, about what we have already achieved. As the Member of Parliament for Suffolk Coastal, I am blessed to represent a very special part of our country, with many precious habitats and protected sites, on land and offshore. I always said it felt like I had had six years of a perfect apprenticeship before I became the Environment Minister in 2016. There are many more parts to the plan that we published yesterday. I recognise that we have work to do, and our aim is to catalyse action across government, across the economy and across the country, with the whole Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs family—our agencies, including Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, our delivery partners and our regulators—the whole of government, and individuals, communities and businesses, from farms to finance, all working together to bring this to life.
Nature needs us to accelerate and scale up our help if we want to enjoy nature and have its help for generations to come. Together, we can achieve it. Whether someone lives in a city or town, in the countryside or on the coast, we all have a part to play in the truly national endeavour and the decade of global action that we need now to see this through. I commend this Statement to the House.”

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, last month the Office for Environmental Protection warned of a serious failure to deliver on every one of the goals set out in the Government’s own 25-year environment plan. The body said:
“The situation is poor across the board, with adverse trends across marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments.”
It added that progress towards 14 of the 23 targets was “off track”, while a lack of available evidence meant that progress could not even be measured for the remaining nine.
Against this backdrop, we welcome Defra publishing its environmental improvement plan, and actually managing to publish it on time. There are some promising-looking targets in the document. However, the Government have generally been pretty good at setting themselves targets; for example, at COP 26. The problem is that Ministers have not been so good at taking the action needed to actually achieve them.
Dame Glenys Stacey, chair of the OEP, has welcomed the environmental improvement plan but also warned that:
“It’s all about delivery now.”
So I ask the Minister: what are the Government going to do differently this time around to actually deliver on their commitments? Members of this House have expressed concern regarding the long-term environmental targets contained in recent SIs we have debated, and we are concerned that some of the interim targets may not be ambitious enough.
I ask the Minister: does Defra accept the observation of Philip Dunne MP, chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in another place, that
“the targets are only worthwhile if they are met and have the backing of all departments across Government”?
This has also been stressed by the Office for Environmental Protection in its recent report, where it stressed the need for better
“alignment and co-ordination at all levels—
of government—
“local and national, and actions that extend beyond Defra”.
I have a number of other questions for the Minister and am happy for him to write, if he is unable to address some of them this afternoon. What did the Secretary of State, Thérèse Coffey, mean when she said in a recent letter to Mr Dunne that, after publication of the EIP, she intends
“to undertake a series of deep dives on priority issues so we can get on and deliver”?
Can the Minister outline the areas that she will be focusing on and what form these “deep dives” will take? Will they just be reviews of the current situation or are they likely to lead to policy change and/or actual legislation? How does Defra intend to work with local government and other departments across government to ensure a commitment to deliver?
The Secretary of State’s letter also says that Defra is on track to legislate for an alternative transition registration model for UK REACH in 2024. Can the Minister provide any information on what that will look like? Is it likely to be primary or secondary legislation, for example? If primary, is there not a case for bringing forward a broader piece of environmental legislation?
Concerns have also been raised about the lack of new money to assist with delivery of the EIP. The Secretary of State herself confirmed that there will be no major new funding, beyond a dedicated pot to protect some species including hedgehogs and red squirrels. Although, of course, we welcome this increased protection, some farming leaders have said that new sources of funds are needed to encourage farmers to take up environmental land management schemes.
The Public Accounts Committee made a series of recommendations to Defra in its report on ELMS, which said:
“The Department is over-optimistic about what it will be able to achieve by when”.
The report went so far as to question the Government’s readiness to deliver their policies—sadly, not a new occurrence for Defra. So what action is the department taking in response to these concerns? Has Defra made any bids for extra funds from the Treasury in advance of March’s Spring Budget?
As well as considering what is in the plan, we must also acknowledge what is missing. For example, although it contains stipulations for fitting dual-flush toilets, it does little to force water companies to deal with other issues, such as stopping pouring sewage into our rivers. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, recently asked what happened to the dedicated soil health strategy, which was a promise made by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, during the progress of the Environment Act. Despite that pledge, it appears that soil-related issues have  simply been wrapped up into the EIP. Can the Minister explain why the target of bringing 40% of agricultural soil into sustainable management by 2028, and 60% by 2030, is now tied into “new farming schemes” and nothing else?
Finally, with the Second Reading of the retained EU law Bill later today, what guarantees can the Minister give that Defra’s existing environmental regulations will be maintained and not ditched or watered down? I hope he can understand our scepticism about this, when he says that the Government will keep green regulations by default and yet there is no final figure for how many actually exist.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, the nine actions listed in the Government’s statement of achievements and implementations in the first 100 days of this Government appear to be impressive on paper, but a little digging into the reality reveals a very different picture. Much is made of the ban on single-use plastics from October 2023. Two years have passed since the statutory instrument to bring this into effect was agreed in this Chamber. At the time, those of us involved in the debate pressed for a much earlier implementation date but were unsuccessful. Even now, with so much notice, industry is complaining about the cost. It was widely publicised at the time, so there was plenty of time to plan and even to implement before the cut-off date this year. However, I welcome the Government’s co-operation in persuading other countries to agree a new legally binding global treaty to end plastic pollution by 2040. Does this apply to all plastic in consumer items only, or will it include plastics used in manufacturing industries as well?
I read with interest the environmental principles policy statement when it was first released, but I fear I found the principles underwhelming in the extreme. If government departments choose to ignore them, there appears to be absolutely no redress to bring them into line to consider and protect our dwindling biodiversity. How will Defra ensure that all government departments fully embrace the environmental principles?
Of course, it is important that children and adults have access to green spaces and coastal areas for leisure activities. I look forward to the implementation plan for ensuring that everyone in the country can be within 15 minutes’ walking distance of blue or green spaces for relaxation and enjoyment. How will this be achieved? What is the exact timeframe for the delivery? In what form are the Government engaging with landowners, local authorities and other agencies to ensure that this happens in the most built-up areas?
I turn to the thorny issue of fly-tipping. I see from the Statement that the intention is to ask local authorities to deal with the problem. During the passage of the Agriculture Act, the debate demonstrated across the Chamber that fly-tipping on agricultural land costs the farming community dearly. Affected farms have to pay to clear up the waste tipped, regardless of what it is—garden waste, retail and industrial waste, building waste—costing farmers thousands of pounds. However, the then Minister rejected the suggestion that CCTV on farms would be extremely helpful, despite much of the support for CCTV coming from his own Benches.  Can the Minister say when the Government will publish what they intend to do to tackle that scourge and what they consider to be best practice?
I turn briefly to the Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund. The Statement indicates that £39 million has been invested in the project. Can the Minister say exactly when the £39 million was released and how much of it has been allocated so far? Does the fund have a time limit for applications? As the fund is focused on the illegal trade in wildlife, can the Minister also say whether any of that money is allocated to tackling and imposing heavy sanctions on the importation of ivory? It is illegal to import ivory products into this country, but that has not made a significant difference to the African elephant. Can the Minister please give an update on the effect of the Ivory Act?
I agree with the Statement from the Minister in the other place that Defra will have to work across the whole of government, Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, communities and businesses to achieve the measures set out in the Statement. Given the huge loss in biodiversity and the levels of plastic and chemical pollution in our landscapes, coastal areas and waterways, does the Minister believe that this is achievable in a realistic timeframe?

Lord Benyon: My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I am very grateful to the two noble Baronesses for their questions on the environmental improvement plan. As they know, it was published last Tuesday 31 January and sets out the action we are taking to implement the 25-year environment plan, leading on from the work your Lordships did in this House to make that ground-breaking legislation law. Each chapter of the EIP describes the progress we have made in realising the 10 goals of the 25-year environment plan. It also sets out our plans to continue to deliver those goals and to achieve legally binding targets that support them.
Our most critical goal is to achieve thriving plants and wildlife by halting the decline of nature by the end of this decade. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, rightly asked whether there is any real prospect of achieving that, and we think that it is achievable. It is difficult, but we can achieve it if we work really hard. We said that we will create and restore habitats the size of Dorset, we will invest more than £750 million in tree planting and peatland restoration, and we will protect 30% of our land and sea for nature by 2030. The EIP sets out how we will achieve clean air by cutting emissions from domestic burning appliances and by reducing ammonia emissions through farming incentives and investments in slurry storage. Our goal of clean and plentiful water is vital for a healthy natural environment, and we will deliver that by upgrading 160 wastewater treatment plants by 2027 and promoting sustainable agriculture, restoring 400 miles of rivers and reducing water company leakages by 50% by 2050.
Addressing one of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, we will continue to manage exposure to chemicals and pesticides. We will develop a chemical strategy and prioritise the  sustainable use of chemicals through UK REACH legislation. We will achieve the goal of minimising waste by implementing the extended producer responsibility, introducing a deposit return scheme for plastic and metal drinks containers, and banning single-use plastics; similar schemes have been extremely successful in other countries. The EIP sets out how we will achieve the goal of using natural resources more sustainably and efficiently by growing the long-term UK timber supply, bringing 40% of our soils into sustainable management by 2028, and tackling illegal deforestation in our supply chains.
In delivering our goal to mitigate and adapt to climate change, we recognise the two-way relationship between climate and nature, and we will prioritise the use of nature-based solutions. This embeds changes that were made at COP 26, and underpinned at COP 27 and CBD 15 in Montreal just before Christmas, which have hard-wired nature into the whole climate piece. It is absolutely vital that we reflect that in the United Kingdom as much as we are globally.
This approach is at the forefront of our goal to reduce the risk of harm from environmental hazards by investing in flood defences, rewarding our farmers for actions to reduce the risk of floods, droughts and wildfires. To restore our biodiversity, we will continue to deliver the goal of enhanced biosecurity. We will implement the five-year action plan of the 2023 Plant Biosecurity Strategy for Great Britain and seize the opportunity of Brexit to tailor our border import controls with a new risk-based target operating model.
Our final goal, woven through all the others, is to enhance the beauty and heritage of, and engagement with, the natural environment. The key point that everyone should live within 15 minutes of green or blue space is really important to Ministers. To address the point made by the noble Baroness, an enormous amount of data is held by Natural England and others. We are using it to identify the communities that are most economically challenged with the highest levels of deprivation, which are often the hardest ones to connect to nature. There are good examples right across the country of how that is being achieved, and we want to see that rolled out nationally.
To address the other points that have been made, I think the targets are achievable. I entirely agree with my colleague in the other place, Philip Dunne, that they must be met and that nature underpins everything right across government, be it the NHS, our defence forces, how we educate our children, heal our sick or support our vulnerable. Nature is at the heart of it, whether in the provision of drugs, through the health and well-being that can be created, how we can divert people away from our health service—nature is the deliverer of that. If we are not supporting nature, nothing else fits in.
The Secretary of State is determined on delivery. We spend a lot of time holding ourselves to account, but also those delivery agencies that we need to work properly to make sure that this plan is delivered. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that this is not a matter only for Defra; it is a matter for all aspects of government, including local government. We are putting huge burdens on a variety of different agencies, professions  and individuals to make sure that this is successful, and we are determined to work with them to make sure that that is achievable.
On environmental land management schemes, we have ring-fenced the £2.4 billion a year that goes into supporting farmers in England, and that is a commitment up to the end of this Parliament. Of course, parties will be discussing among themselves how we take that forward, but every major economy in the world supports agriculture in different ways. What we have done in recent decades has caused huge problems for our environment and for the well-being of precisely those businesses we want to see flourish. Now there is an opportunity to pivot and to make sure that we are supporting farmers who are doing the right things for the environment—investing in soils and in the natural capital for which they are responsible, and which will underpin the long-term benefit of their businesses.
The noble Baroness asked about soils. This is absolutely fundamental to turning round our environment so that we can reverse the decline of species by 2030 and increase the potential of the farmed environment. So yes, tied into the targets is improving and protecting soil health. It is a key part of this document. By 2028, we will bring at least 40% of England’s agricultural soil into sustainable management through our new farming schemes, increasing this to 60% by 2030. We will do this in a variety of ways, which I probably do not have time to go through today. However, I am happy to take the noble Baroness through it, along with my noble friend the Earl of Caithness, who is rightly concerned about this.
I will make just one further point to the noble Baroness: there is no way we could achieve what we have tied into law, and into our targets through the Environment Act, if we were to somehow, as has been suggested, be about to trash our environmental protections. We cannot do it. It is absolutely vital that we use the sensible ones that are relevant to our natural environment, that we can discard ones that have nothing to do with these islands at all, and that we can work with people to do that. I implore the noble Baroness to join me, if she wants to, in the process part, but it is the outcomes that matter, and the outcomes are set out very clearly in this document. We have to achieve them, and we will not do that by somehow getting rid, as has been suggested, of all these protections.
On the key point to the noble Baroness made on fly tipping, I would add litter. I live the distance away from a McDonald’s drive-thru that it takes to eat a McDonald’s drive-thru, and what people then do with the rest of their McDonald’s drive-thru causes me to fulminate in a way that alarms those around me. I think the state of some of our highways and roads is absolutely disgraceful. We can talk about government and their responsibility for this, but we still have to talk about a culture, where people have so little regard for the natural environment and where they seem to have lost a sense of place, that allows this to happen.
We have given powers; powers are available to local authorities to deal with this. We want to make sure that they are using them, that we are encouraging people not to throw litter and that we are able to  support those authorities that need to clear it up. Yes, CCTV is absolutely available. The Environment Agency has the means to record what is happening at key hotspots and it has taken forward prosecutions; but we, as Ministers in Defra, really want to get behind those efforts of society and those who share our views that the state of some of our countryside through litter is unacceptable.
On the illegal wildlife trade, the Ivory Act is an exemplary piece of legislation. It became law in all its measures relatively recently, and of course we are not a range state. We have to accept that we can only do our bit to stop the importation of ivory, but we are putting huge resources into assisting range-state countries to make sure they have the means to prevent poaching—with some success, I have to say. I agree with the noble Baronesses that it does require a whole-government approach to implement these targets, and that determination exists very clearly within Defra.

Viscount Hailsham: Will my noble friend reassure this House that the UK production of foodstuffs—preferably an expansion in the UK production of foodstuffs—remains a priority for this Government?

Lord Benyon: I can assure my noble friend that it does remain a priority for this Government. If he looks at the very first few lines of the Agriculture Act, he will see that it is beholden on the Secretary of State of the day to make sure that farmers are able to produce food sustainably. That remains an absolutely determined view right across government, but we also want to make sure that we are accepting that, if you deplete your natural capital, you are destroying the life chances of farmers of the future and you are not allowing the industry to produce the kind of food that the public want to eat. So we want to assist farmers, where they need it, to go on that journey to produce food sustainably; it is absolutely at the heart of our agricultural policy.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords, the Statement refers to the fact that, 70 years ago, people were waking up to the great flood of 1953, which caused great loss of life and great damage in Millbank, outside this House. One of the consequences of that great flood was to begin the planning that eventually led to the Thames Barrier. Will the Minister share with the House the current thinking about the need to look ahead for an additional protection for London with a second barrier? Given the time involved in planning such a thing, can he give us any indication of what the department’s thinking is about the need for it and how long it might take to bring about?

Lord Benyon: The noble Viscount is absolutely right to raise this. That storm flood, which was a perfect storm in every sense of the word, combined a tidal surge with very high water levels. It led to some visionary thinking right across government and saw that measure put in. There is work going on to factor in long-term rises in sea levels, as have been predicted by a number of different organisations. I am not up to date on where those are, but they are very real and we  want to make sure that we protect one of the great cities of the world from all future risks. If I can get back to the noble Viscount with more details on precisely where the Environment Agency, Defra and other parts of government are working on that, I will.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I urge my noble friend to look at outcomes in the water efficiency of new developments. Undoubtedly, building 300,000 houses a year is contributing to sewage outfall from inadequate pipes. Can I instil in my noble friend a degree of urgency in ensuring that the very welcome mandatory requirement to fit all new developments to sustainable sewage systems is brought forward, so that we can have a consultation and implementation before December?

Lord Benyon: I share my noble friend’s delight that we are taking forward this part of the Flood and Water Management Act. I know that it has been a long time coming. There are a lot of different players in this and we want to get it right, but we are now on the home run. I will be able to give her more details on timings in the very near future.

Baroness Boycott: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government have decided to relicense neonicotinoids for this year? They were banned here and are banned across other countries that have similar soil structures to ours. As I understand it, this was brought in a few years ago only as an emergency, yet now they have been relicensed again. That slightly goes in the face of what the Minister was saying about banning chemicals.

Lord Benyon: We have certainly not gone back on the commitment to ban neonicotinoids. As has happened in the last two years, we have given an indication that we might be in favour of the application of something called Cruiser SB, a plant protection product containing the active substance thiamethoxam, for the sugar beet industry. It will be allowed to be applied only if winter data shows that there will be a considerable loss of crop. If there is a considerable loss of crop, the sugar that would have been produced would have to come from other parts of the world at a higher carbon cost, and probably grown in circumstances where neonicotinoids are allowed. We will not allow spraying when the plant is in flower, so it will not be as damaging as the seed dressing that caused such a problem. It is a very rare circumstance; in the years in which this derogation has been allowed, on many occasions it has not actually been used because the threshold of potential crop loss was not reached.

Baroness Ludford: I make my regular plea to the Minister—I think he took this point once before—that the term “storm overflows” of raw sewage should be discouraged. It does not happen in storm conditions or even in heavy rainfall; moderate rainfall causes these overflows, which exist because of a lack of investment in sewage treatment capacity. I learned that from a tip-off from someone in the Environment Agency 18 years ago when I was campaigning for what became the Tideway Tunnel.

Lord Benyon: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It takes just a few millimetres of rain to fall on London for sewage outflows to start pushing sewage straight into the Thames. That is why, two decades ago, we were taken to court by the European Union for failure to comply with the urban wastewater treatment directive. That led to the investment of £1.4 billion in the sewer currently under construction. There are other storm overflows—or whatever they should be called; perhaps just “overflows”—where it takes a similarly small amount of rainfall to cause a problem. That is the low-hanging fruit that we want to see targeted, where we would see the quickest results from the £56 billion investment we will see made in our sewerage network—the largest since privatisation.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, in responding to the Front Benches, the Minister said that soil is absolutely fundamental to the Government’s environment plans. It is therefore a bit of a pity that the word “soil” does not appear anywhere in the Statement to the other place introducing the environmental improvement plans. None the less, I refer—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, did—to the Government’s former promise and quote a Defra blog from 9 September 2021, which announced:
“Soil Health Action Plan to be launched”.
We are told that the soil health action plan has been rolled into this plan. There is, as the Minister said, a target of 40% of soils being in sustainable management by 2028. The only action I can see in the plan is to create a baseline map of soil health by 2028. Do the Government not plan to take any actual action on soil health until after that map has been created?

Lord Benyon: As the noble Baroness will know, the Government—whether Ministers or civil servants—do not save soil; farmers do. We want, first, to incentivise them to do the right thing where possible. Secondly, we want to mandate doing the right thing. In our 300-page document on improving and protecting soil—it is not possible to mention everything in it in a Statement—we say that we will
“monitor soil health as part of the Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment”
and
“on top of this Defra will … Establish a soil health indicator under the 25 Year Environment Plan Outcome Indicator Framework … Publish a baseline map of soil health for England by 2028 … Support farmers and land managers to establish their own soil health baseline, so they can best manage the health of their soil … Provide a methodology and tools to collect consistent information about the health of the soil under all land uses … Share current guidance and best practice with farmers and land managers to improve their knowledge and work with them on how to improve soil health.”
We will also prevent
“valuable soil resources from being sent to landfill”
and secure
“the integrity of future soil carbon codes”
so that we can unlock the trillions of dollars of ESG money sloshing about in investment in the City and other investment centres to make sure that we are focusing it on our natural environment. Soil health will be fundamental to that. We want to increase organic matter to make soil function as an ecosystem,  so that it does not leach what we do not want to see going into our rivers, along with soil itself. Soil is finite natural capital and, after a heavy rain storm, you can often see plumes of soil going into our seas. We want to stop that happening.

Duke of Wellington: My Lords, the Minister will be pleased that I am not going to ask a question about sewage. One of the targets in this lengthy document—which strikes me as remarkably unambitious—is for water companies to cut leaks by 50% by 2050. Surely we can do better than that.

Lord Benyon: I refute the idea from the noble Duke that this is not ambitious. I urge him to read all 250 to 300 pages of the document and see the lengths that it goes to to put our natural environment first in a way that we have not done for decades. This really is a moment when we can do this. The noble Duke will remember from the debate on the Environment Act that a crucial part of it says that the targets we have must be achievable. The Secretary of State of the day must believe that they are possible. To an extent, we cannot do more than what the scientists say is achievable and we have set out how we can do this.
On the data on leakage, I assure the noble Duke that it is not just this target that is pushing that goal. We are giving direction and encouragement to Ofwat and our water companies to invest more in preventing leakage. Of course, it is not a single line going to 2050; there will be a dramatic increase in improvements from the investment we are putting in—in the easier-to-target areas first. We will then see that target of 2050 being met, we hope, before that date.

Lord Swire: Will the Minister commit to providing continuing assistance to South West Water? In the south-west, we have a disproportionate amount of the country’s beaches and there has been support from the Government in the past. Will they continue that support?

Lord Benyon: I was the Minister responsible for delivering on the coalition Government’s clear commitment to reduce bills for water charge payers in the south-west because of the extra effort they had to make to protect their bathing waters and waterways. I do not know what plans there are for the future but it has certainly been extremely successful, particularly for those on low incomes. We still have measures to provide for those who are very challenged economically, so that they can have a social tariff. We will continue to work with South West Water and all MPs in that area, who are lobbying hard on this issue.

Baroness Parminter: My Lords, given the importance of putting the environment right across government thinking, it is welcome that the environmental principles policy statement was published. But the Minister said “defence” and, as I am sure he well knows, the MoD is exempt from the provisions of the EPPS and it is unclear how it will take forward the environment in its future provisions. Why, if the Government have produced the EPPS now, will it not come into force for another ten months? If the Minister  is going to say it is about process, I have two further questions. First, the Office for Environmental Protection offered to advise the Government on creating the processes for the training of Ministers and civil servants. Have they asked the OEP for advice? Secondly, following the question that got no reply for the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, there seem to be no means for this to be anything other than a box-ticking exercise, because we will not be able to see how these EPPSs are delivered. What is the process for Parliament and other people to see that these EPPSs are doing what they need to do?

Lord Benyon: The noble Baroness is right: the Ministry of Defence was carved out of the provisions in large areas. However, I urge her to look at what it is doing by way of tree-planting and moving to net zero where it can on its very large estate. We want to make sure that we assist the MoD in doing that.
On the noble Baroness’s other point, about measurement, I hope that throughout this the ideal work of Select Committees and more informed groups of your Lordships will be to delve into this and hold Ministers to account in future years. I entirely believe that these targets show where the Government can explain how it wants to hit those targets and achieve them in a way that holds them accountable throughout. The end date is not necessarily the date that will be of particular interest to the noble Baroness; she wants to know about progress towards it. That is why there are interim target dates throughout, some coming up very soon, which will show the path towards achieving what we set out in the provisions.

Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, goal 9 of the plan is “Enhancing biosecurity”. It mentions the grey squirrel action plan, which is as yet unpublished. Of course, grey squirrels are the number one threat to tree health in our country and the number one threat to our great desire to increase afforestation for sound, green reasons. Is the new grey squirrel action plan in final form, and when will it be published?

Lord Benyon: I am not sure of the exact date, but the noble Earl, who is very close to these issues, will be the first to know. He and others have taken forward so much work by producing this contraceptive and, further down the track, the possibility of a gene driver, which may or may not be a solution. That and a range of other issues will go to the eradication of this pest, which is damaging for biodiversity and tree health. You see people virtue signalling about what they are planting, but it will grow to have no effect on carbon sequestration or the delivery of biodiversity unless we deal with this pest. It is of massive concern to the Secretary of State and her Ministers.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, as part of the commitment to clean up our rivers, what checks will be undertaken on the levels of industrial toxins in silt in rivers in industrial areas, which can be disturbed in dredging and enter the sea in coastal areas? Is the Minister confident that there are enough regular checks on industrial toxins in silt in some of our older industrial areas?

Lord Benyon: The noble Lord raises an important point. First, it surprised a number of people that one of our targets on water quality was based around the release of toxic substances from old mine workings, but it had emerged that this is a serious problem in certain parts of the country. That is why we have a very clear target to deal with that difficult issue. I think the point the noble Lord is really raising is around port developments, possibly in the Tees area. This is a matter of great concern to us, and to everyone, because of the horrendous deaths of crustaceans on 70 miles of coastline in the north-east. As he knows, we have carried out a panel inquiry under the auspices of the chief scientific adviser at Defra, Professor Gideon Henderson, so some of the best people in the business are looking into this. It is of great regret that we have yet to pin down what caused this tragic occurrence in the ecosystem of the North Sea, but I assure him that all dredgings in that area—and indeed anywhere else—will be subject to the most rigorous inspections. We will do all we can to get to the bottom of what caused this, but the information we have is that there was not enough possibility of pyridine being released into the sea to cause deaths on this scale. We remain determined to find out what happened.

Lord Trees: My Lords, the Government have ambitious and admirable targets for tree planting, but what assessment has Defra made of our nursery capacity here in the UK to provide all the native saplings we will need in order to avoid importing trees, with the risk of importing tree pathogens? Past experience has shown us that this can negate all the benefits of reforestation.

Lord Benyon: The noble Lord is entirely right. We are doing all we can to increase the capacity of our native tree nursery sector to produce what is needed for the very ambitious plans we have for tree planting. Our reliance on imports in past decades has contributed to some of the diseases we have seen come our way, with tragic consequences. We are doing a lot through a variety of different grant schemes, but we are also showing that the market is there for the sector to expand. Our requirement that trees planted on public estates through public procurement have to be from Plant Healthy-registered nurseries only will encourage a great many more nurseries to go into that scheme. That will ensure that only those plants we can guarantee the health of will be sold in those public procurement contracts.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
 - Second Reading

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant documents: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 25th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Lord Callanan: My Lords, before I get into my speech, I note with great anticipation that we will be hearing not one but two maiden speeches today. We are indeed blessed. Let me first warmly welcome my noble friend Lady Bray of Coln and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway. I am delighted to note that Lady O’Grady has come from advocating for a people’s assembly in 2013 to joining us here today—quite the journey. I look forward to both their contributions to this debate.
First, I thank the Minister for Industry and Investment Security for ensuring that the Bill has been sent to us in this place following much reasoned and thorough debate in the other place. At all stages there were commitments made across a number of issues, including our international obligations, employment rights and environmental protections. I reiterate those commitments now and of course will continue to do so throughout the passage of the Bill.
The retained EU law Bill is the next step in reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament and untangling the United Kingdom from nearly 50 years of EU membership. Retained EU law was never intended to sit on our statute book indefinitely. Indeed, the time is now right to review retained EU law and end it as a special legal category. The Bill will achieve this by enabling the Government to more easily amend, revoke or replace retained EU law by the end of 2023. This will ensure that the Government are able to create legislation which better suits the UK without taking decades of parliamentary time to achieve.
The Bill enables the UK to fully grasp the myriad opportunities to create modern and agile regulation, to support the ambitions of our sovereign nation. There are countless opportunities for reform ahead of us, ranging from financial services to data, and from artificial intelligence to transport and energy. Through the Bill, the Government will work to develop a new, pro-growth, high-standards regulatory framework that gives businesses the confidence to innovate, invest, scale up and therefore to create more jobs.
Clause 1 lays the groundwork for an ambitious and efficient overhaul of all retained EU law. It establishes 31 December 2023 as the sunset date on which retained EU law will cease to exist, unless there is further action by government and Parliament to preserve it as “assimilated law” without its special EU law features. In this way, the sunset ensures that outdated and unnecessary laws are quickly and easily repealed. It will also provide government departments with a clear timeline to seize reform opportunities. Indeed, a sunset is the quickest and most effective way to accelerate reform across over 400 policy areas and deliver the rapid repeal of retained EU law.
It is only right to set the sunset of retained EU law as the default position. This ensures that we are proactively choosing to preserve laws inherited from our membership of the EU only where they work in the best interests of the United Kingdom. Some retained EU law is of course inoperable and removing it from the statute book is merely good democratic governance.
The sunset extension mechanism, found in Clause 2, will allow specified instruments or specified descriptions of retained EU law to continue in force beyond the  sunset date where that is necessary and in our interests. The sunset date cannot be extended beyond the end of 23 June 2026. It is my hope that this clause proves unnecessary, but it would be irresponsible not to include a clause to allow for unforeseen circumstances. Together, these two clauses will facilitate reforms that will help to grow our economy, deliver the opportunities Brexit provides and support advances in technology and science.
From the end of 2023, the Bill will end the special status of retained EU law on our statute book. Clauses 3 to 5 will ensure that EU rights, obligations and remedies retained by Section 4 of the withdrawal Act will cease to apply and that the application of the principle of supremacy and general principles of EU law as rules of interpretation will end. The retention of these principles provided legal continuity at the end of the transition period, but it would be constitutionally inappropriate to leave these retained EU law principles on the UK statute book in perpetuity. In many cases, the principles and rights in question already overlap with well-established provisions in domestic law. This has the potential to undermine the clarity of our law. To reflect these changes, Clause 6 renames retained EU law which has not been sunset as “assimilated law” after the end of 2023. This is not, as some have said, a simple “rebranding” exercise but is a new body of law without the EU law rules of interpretation.
Where further provision is necessary, the Bill provides powers in Clause 8 and Clauses 12 to 14 to codify specific rights and interpretive effects clearly and accessibly in domestic statute. We are proud of the history of the UK legal system, in which common-law principles and legislation are well established. These reforms will continue that tradition and ensure that our law continues to develop as one best suited to the UK context.
Past judgments of the courts have set too high a bar for UK courts to depart from retained case law and the judgments of EU courts. Now that we have left the European Union, we must reassess when it is right to depart from retained case law and establish more UK-focused precedents. The retained EU law Bill will free our courts to develop case law on retained EU law in a way that is right for the United Kingdom. Clause 7 introduces new tests for higher courts to apply when considering departure from retained case law. The tests give higher courts greater clarity on the factors to consider, and greater freedom to decide when it is appropriate to depart from that retained case law. The clause will also facilitate more decisions on departure from retained case law. It empowers lower courts to refer points of law to higher courts for a decision on whether to depart. It also confers on the law officers of the UK and on the devolved Governments similar reference powers and gives them the right to join cases to argue with regard to departure from retained case law.
Clause 9 gives the judiciary powers in connection with the ending of the supremacy of EU law. Courts and tribunals will issue incompatibility orders and will be able to grant appropriate remedies in legal proceedings where retained direct EU legislation cannot be read consistently with other pieces of domestic legislation.
Retained direct EU legislation, composed mainly of EU regulations over which the UK Parliament had no real say, often does not reflect the UK’s priorities or objectives to drive growth. We are currently forced to treat some of this legislation as equivalent to an Act of Parliament when amending it. This limits our ability to make vital reforms and is constitutionally inappropriate.

Viscount Hailsham: In respect of the legislation that is to be revoked or re-enacted, is my noble friend going to tell the House what consultation there will be with the various stakeholders, who must run into the thousands?

Lord Callanan: When secondary law is implemented there is a well-established procedure for appropriate consultations, which of course will take place. All those stakeholders are able to have their say through many Members of both Houses of Parliament as well.
Clause 10 will therefore ensure that retained direct principal EU legislation and Section 4 EU withdrawal Act rights are downgraded, ensuring that they are treated as equivalent to secondary legislation for the purposes of amendment.
It is critical to ensure that this body of law can be updated, amended and reformed using appropriate delegated powers. Without these measures, thousands of regulations will become stagnant—unable to stay up to date, react to new information or implement new international agreements without requiring a new Act of Parliament. Clauses 10 and 11 support this Government’s commitment to taking the necessary steps to put the UK statute book on a sustainable footing, guaranteeing that we can seize all the opportunities that leaving the EU supplies.
The powers in the Bill, combined with the downgrading of retained direct principal legislation, will make it easier for Ministers to amend or repeal retained EU law without the need for primary legislation. The powers have also been designed to deal with matters arising in relation to the sunset and the ending of retained EU law as a legal category at the end of 2023. It has become increasingly clear that there is a lack of subordinate legislation-making powers to remove retained EU law from the statute book. It is appropriate to take powers in the Bill to address this.
The retained EU law dashboard has identified over 3,700 pieces of retained EU law across 16 departments. While some of these laws will be preserved, of course, many are outdated, some are unduly burdensome, and others are increasingly unsuited to the UK’s economic circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary to have powers in the Bill that are capable of acting on a wide range of retained EU law covering a variety of different policy areas. This is not a power grab by the Government.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Callanan: Rather, the powers in the Bill will enable us to seize the opportunities of Brexit through reviewing the laws that were imposed on us by Brussels during our membership of the European Union. Sectoral-specific legislation simply cannot be passed in a timely enough manner to ensure that these regulations are made suitable for the United Kingdom.
The powers in the Bill will enable the Government to more easily replace retained EU law with domestic laws that are tailored to the UK and, importantly, work in the interests of the United Kingdom, while the power to update will ensure that the UK keeps pace with advances in science and technology over time.
The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that legislation undergoes the appropriate level of scrutiny.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Callanan: Well, it is more than some of the EU legislation did. I did not mean to start a debate on this.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords—

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: My Lords, while not forbidden, it is considered discourteous to interrupt the Minister in his opening speech. If the noble Lord wishes to speak, he should put his name down for the gap.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My name is on the list.

Lord Callanan: I will take the noble Lord’s point.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I merely want to ask the Minister: what proportion of the legislation was, as he described it, imposed? Presumably, it was only the laws that we voted against.

Lord Callanan: Given his direct experience, the noble Lord knows exactly how the procedures work in Brussels. The point I was making was that the vast majority was introduced into UK law directly, without any appropriate scrutiny from Parliament beforehand. Obviously, there were lots of discussions in Brussels. He took part in some on behalf of the Council, and I took part in many in the European Parliament as well. But there was no scrutiny in this Parliament for much of that legislation.

Earl of Kinnoull: I do not mean to be discourteous; I really am not. But the European Union Committee of this House and the European Scrutiny Committee of the other place sat for nearly 50 years doing the scrutiny that the Minister is saying did not take place. It was very heavy: it used 72 Peers from this Chamber in its structure. There was quite a lot of scrutiny going on.

Lord Callanan: There was scrutiny but no ability for Parliament to amend any of it, of course.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Callanan: We will have this debate as we progress with the legislation, I am sure.
As I was saying, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that legislation undergoes the appropriate level of scrutiny. The Bill has been drafted to ensure there are robust scrutiny measures and   safeguards in place. This includes a sifting procedure for regulations proposed to be made under the powers to restate and the powers to revoke or replace.
Now that we have left the EU and regained our sovereignty, it is important that the UK has a regulatory system designed to benefit UK consumers and businesses. To ensure that the UK makes the most of the opportunities outside the EU, and as outlined in the The Benefits of Brexit report published in January last year, the UK is reforming how it monitors and evaluates future regulation.
It is important that we repeal the business impact target, which has too narrow a focus on the impacts of regulation. Our new system will ensure earlier scrutiny of proposed regulation; a more holistic assessment of its impacts on UK households, businesses and consumers; and a regulatory framework that is therefore fit for purpose.
We have seen how our legislature has evolved since leaving the EU. It is right that we now take the next step and relinquish from our statute book retained EU laws that do not work in the interests of the United Kingdom. The Bill ensures that we can achieve that, by seizing the freedoms afforded to us by Brexit.
The Government have read with interest the reports from the DPRRC and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I look forward to hearing reasoned comments on these from many noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord McLoughlin and members of both of those committees.
The Bill will benefit people and businesses across our country, reassert our sovereign approach to law and regulation, and support the interests of our United Kingdom, rather than those of Brussels. I know that many noble Lords in this Chamber will agree with me when I say that, in this current climate, protecting the UK’s best interests is of the utmost importance. We must therefore continue to surge forward to ensure that our statute book is put on a sustainable footing for all four sovereign nations of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Lord Fox: Moved by Lord Fox
At end insert “but regrets that the Bill (1) weakens the scrutiny role of Parliament and proposes unparalleled delegated powers be given to Ministers of the Crown, (2) does not respect the constitutional role of the devolved administrations, (3) sets an arbitrary deadline for the revocation of many hundreds of laws protecting the United Kingdom’s high environmental standards, as well as employment and consumer rights and safety standards, with no indication of the rules that will replace them, and (4) imposes a cliff-edge at the end of 2023 that will create uncertainty for people and businesses”.

Lord Fox: My Lords, I draw attention to my non-pecuniary interests as a vice-president of the German-British Chamber of Commerce and a director of the German British Forum. I associate my thoughts with the Minister in anticipation of the two maiden speeches by the noble Baronesses.
As we have heard, the Bill seeks to make major changes to the body of retained EU law in UK domestic law. It aims to automatically revoke, or sunset, most retained EU law at the end of 2023. Any retained EU law that still applies after the end of 2023 would be renamed as assimilated law. At this point, I stop agreeing with the Minister, because this Bill hands huge powers to Ministers at the expense of elected MPs.
Your Lordships might have become immune to the Henry VIII clauses that have been propagated by Bill after Bill coming before this House, but this Bill represents a new, unprecedented level of transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive. It gives Ministers powers to legislate in areas that affect every aspect of our daily lives without any meaningful democratic input. Far from creating new high standards, as has been promised by Minister after Minister, the replacement legislation cannot increase standards: it can only keep them the same or make them lower. Moreover, the impractical timetable imposed by the sunset clause indicates clearly that this Government know that their race is run.
The reaction across key communities and committees across Parliament is very clear—I have never received so much comment from civil society as I have on this Bill. It is not only anti-democratic; it is ill thought through and badly drafted. For example, the impact assessment was roundly criticised by the Regulatory Policy Committee. Then, just last week, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee issued its verdict, which is damning. I am sure your Lordships will refer to it in more detail, but crucially, to my mind, the DPRRC highlights the false dichotomy epitomised by the Bill.
As the committee explains, the Government create such a dichotomy by saying that replacing all retained EU law purely through sector-specific primary legislation would take decades. That might be so, but the committee also notes that this is a false choice between replacing all such legislation with primary legislation and replacing all of it with regulations made by Ministers. There is another way. The choice is not all primary legislation or all ministerial edict. The advice of the Bar Council is a useful suggestion for the way we should go forward. It says of the legislation under review
“the question should be whether it remains fit for purpose: would alternative UK regulation achieve different and preferable goals, be better or more cost-effective in achieving its goals, or more certain in its application?”
In other words, this approach is to improve legislation where appropriate, which reflects the thinking on these Benches.
The Bar Council also outlines two overarching concerns regarding the Bill. First, it says, as do many others, that it is anti-democratic, noting:
“Important changes to our law should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate, and scrutiny.”
This echoes many of the comments that we have heard. Secondly, the Bar Council says:
“The Bill and the attendant legal uncertainty that will follow its adoption as currently drafted will damage the UK’s reputation  for regulatory stability, predictability, and competence, on which growth-promoting investment in critical sectors of our economy depends.”
I will be interested to hear what the lawyers in your Lordships’ House have to say about the need to establish brand-new case law right across the piece. For my part, I note that the Bill also grabs back power from the devolved authorities. I am sure my noble friend Lady Randerson will expand on that theme later today.
However you look at it, this is an unprecedented upheaval of the nation’s laws, yet when I listen to the Minister and his colleagues across Parliament, somehow it is depicted as a sort of tidying-up process. Indeed, Jacob Rees-Mogg described it as a “technical tidying up operation”. I do not know what tidying up looks like in the Rees-Mogg household, but this is not light dusting. To stretch a metaphor, it is the equivalent of tidying up the family nursery by completely dismantling Casa Mogg brick by brick and then putting it back together again. That is quite a task, and there is no guarantee of what comes out at the end.
In this case, what is rebuilt is up to Secretaries of State and them alone, and we all know how such grand designs end: in cost overruns, changes, delays and unexpected problems, but, unlike with the TV programme, there is no guarantee that this real and present story has any pleasing outcome—none whatever.
The tidy-up story would perhaps have a shred of credibility if Ministers were not at the same time pandering to the likes of Sir Bill Cash, who expressed the views of the ultras very well when he said that retained EU law is
“a massive ball and chain”,—[Official Report, Commons, 18/1/23; col. 419.]
implying that the UK must remove this regulation. Only last month, we also heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking up the need to remove, reform and take away regulations. This Bill makes all that possible without Parliament and elected MPs getting in the way, which is music to the ears of Sir Bill and his deregulating colleagues.
Of course, this process also effectively does away with much of the legislation delivered by thousands of statutory instruments passing through your Lordships’ House. As your Lordships no doubt recall, these incorporated retained EU law into British law to avoid what was then described as a chaotic bonfire of regulation as we left the EU, but it seems we delayed that bonfire a few years because a bonfire is what is now proposed in this Bill. This fire will impact a vast range of areas, including consumer rights, safety regulations of all kinds, protecting the environment and, of course, employment rights. No doubt many noble Lords will have detailed examples of these issues as we debate the Bill today.
As well as a power grab and a deregulator’s paradise, this Bill is also likely to deliver something that this Government have excelled at, which is chaos. The Bill, say Ministers, is designed to support business interests—indeed, we heard the Minister say that just now—but we hear from business that it will create chaos and poor governance, rather than stability. This will undermine confidence and will be likely to have a negative impact  on business investment in the economy, something I am sure the Minister would prefer to be going in the opposite direction.
Speaking last month, Tony Danker, the director-general of the CBI, argued that scrapping these 4,000 or so EU-derived laws by the end of 2023, as facilitated by the Bill, was
“creating huge uncertainty for UK firms”.
As he put it:
“Do we really want to subject the public—and industry—to another round of mass confusion and disruption, just when we’re trying to exit recession?”
In his view, and ours, EU laws should be reviewed and, where needed, repealed as part of a wider strategy to deliver smart and better regulation. He noted that the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, is currently reviewing how the UK can better regulate emerging technologies—for example, some of those that the Minister reeled off. The sensible thing, said Danker, would be to wait for that review and act on it systematically. We see the same attitude and response across business. The Federation of Small Businesses, the car makers and most of UK manufacturing do not want the confusion that this Bill will deliver.
Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has worked fast, and should be credited for that, to ensure that its extensive report is available to inform this debate. The committee focuses on the sunset provisions and the lack of effective scrutiny of secondary legislation, but in a broader sense, its view is important and something I would like your Lordships to take on board. It said:
“Amending the Bill so that the shift in power between Parliament and the executive is reversed will require a great deal of thought and creativity, and commitment to the overarching aim of redressing the current imbalance of power.”
In other words, there is a lot to do to this Bill to make it acceptable. We agree that this going to be a difficult job, but we commit to doing it, because we feel it is vital to ensure that MPs maintain a grip on the legislative process rather than, as the Bill commands, hand decisions solely to Ministers.
This amendment highlights why this Bill is wrong. It is wrong because it weakens the scrutiny role of Parliament and gives unparalleled delegated powers to Ministers. It is wrong because it does not respect the constitutional role of the devolved Administrations. It is wrong because it sets an arbitrary deadline for the repeal of numerous laws that protect the UK’s environmental standards, safety standards, employment rights and consumer rights, and it is wrong because it creates uncertainty for businesses and individuals. I beg to move.

Baroness Chapman of Darlington: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady; I look forward to their maiden speeches. I take this opportunity particularly to welcome my noble friend, who has been an inspiration to women throughout the labour movement for many years—especially since she spent time in the 1980s with my husband organising members to join the T&G, some of it spent hanging around outside the back of hotels and other such salubrious places. I  know that she will never forget her roots; her being here today just goes to show what a great engine of social mobility the trade union movement can be. I very much look forward to her speech.
Six years ago, when the Government introduced the then European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which ensured that EU-derived law was incorporated into UK law, I sat in the other place and listened carefully to the Secretary of State as he laid out the Government’s case. That day, he told us:
“The key point of this Bill is to avoid significant and serious gaps in our statute book. It ensures that consumers can be clear about their protection, employees can be clear about their rights, and businesses can be clear about the rules that regulate their trade.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/17; col. 334.]
Somehow, incredibly, the Government have come full circle. This new Bill does the exact opposite. Faced with no external pressure or deadline, the Government are willingly creating their own cliff edge: generating uncertainty rather than reducing it; creating gaps in our legal framework rather than filling them; bringing chaos to the structure of rights, protections and standards on which so much business, trade, employment and environmental protection depends. That is why the opposition to the Bill is so broad and has come from such diverse quarters. It is no mean feat to unify the CBI and the TUC, industry and environmentalists, farmers and factory owners, twitchers and anglers, doctors and lawyers, national parks and the National Trust, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd, and many, many more. All are united in opposition to this Government’s plans. The CBI says that the Government is subjecting
“the public—and industry—to another round of mass confusion and disruption, just when we’re trying to exit recession.”
The TUC has called the Bill a “recipe for chaos”. The Institute of Directors says that it
“will impose a major new burden on business”.
The Federation of Small Businesses wants the sunset provisions removed. The National Farmers’ Union fears that it could unintentionally remove important regulatory safeguards. The Marine Conservation Society says that it
“poses a huge threat to marine life and environmental protections”.
The RSPB says that it will put at risk thousands of crucial laws that protect the natural environment and public health. The Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee has called the Bill “not fit for purpose”.
It would be hard to find a less popular proposal but, despite the warnings of this unprecedented coalition, the Government plough ahead regardless, closing their ears to warning and criticism, with a Bill that is reckless, unpopular and—worst of all—unnecessary. The Bill is not about Brexit. We have left the European Union; we have been out of the EU for three years and the referendum was the best part of a decade ago. These questions are nothing to do with leave or remain; they are not even principally about our future relationship with the EU, although that too, like so much else, could be affected by this legislation. Principally at issue are how we govern our own country, how we regulate our economy, how we ensure rights for workers, how we protect the environment, and the proper role of this Parliament in making those decisions.
No one could reasonably object to revisiting specific laws derived from the EU in a sensible, orderly fashion. It is right and reasonable to ask whether there are areas in which we can do things differently or better—that is the essence of competent government—but what is needed is a smart approach to regulatory change. Ensuring that workers’ rights, consumer protections and environmental standards are maintained or indeed enhanced; carefully considering where we might do things differently and what should stay the same, on a case-by-case basis; listening to stakeholders from business and civil society; respecting the proper role of the devolved Administrations; and promoting a race to the top, not to the bottom—that would be the approach taken by a Labour Government. Instead, we have this uniquely reckless and wrong-headed approach to legislative change.
The Bill is unlike any other that I have seen in my time in either House. There are multiple reasons why in its current form it does not deserve to be on the statute book, but I shall focus on four. The first is the dangerous presumption in the Bill to remove all law which is not specifically retained; the second is the legislative cliff edge created by the so-called sunset clause; the third is the risk that it poses to rights and protections in countless fields; and the fourth is the extraordinary and unjustifiable powers given to Ministers of the Crown, and the disrespect shown to Parliament. I will take each in turn.
First, the upshot of the intention to remove all EU-derived law by default is one simple and absurd fact: no one knows exactly what laws will be revoked at the end of the year. The Government certainly do not know. They are still merrily adding new legislation to their online dashboard, checking behind government sofas for some other scroll of vellum that they may have overlooked. Nothing illustrates this farcical process more than the fact that, between the Bill passing Third Reading in the Commons and arriving before noble Lords today, another 1,000 pieces of legislation were added to the pile. Some may still be removed without being identified first, with indeterminate consequences. This is legislative Jenga. Never before in my time in either House have a Government brought forth a piece of legislation whose legal scope they are unable to define. The Government’s proposal is that this House should give Ministers the power to remove laws without them being able to say which laws will be removed. That is a nonsensical way to govern.
The second objection is to the sunset clause. All EU law that is not specifically retained will be revoked by the end of the year. That creates a completely arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory cliff edge at a time when business is crying out for stability. In fact, the Bill in effect contains three sunset clauses—2023, 2026 and for ever—since, under Clause 1(2), Ministers can choose to retain EU law until they choose to change it. If you were trying to design a Bill to undermine business confidence and inward investment, it would be hard to do a better job than this one. The Bill says to business, “The current rules that you operate under—the rules that you understand, rely on and are compliant with—may cease to exist at the end of the year. We can’t say which rules for certain yet, we can’t say what they will be  replaced with, and the decision will be made by the Business Secretary on a whim.” If the Minister disagrees, could he tell the CBI, the FSB, the British Chamber of Commerce and the Institute of Directors why it is them who are wrong?
The cliff edge will generate an extraordinary volume of work for civil servants, especially in those departments with a large body of retained EU law, such as Defra. According to the Government’s own dashboard, Defra will have to assess, revise or amend more than 1,700 pieces of law—more than four pieces of law every day between now and the end of the year. That is not achievable. As the consumer watchdog Which? has said, this time pressure creates the risk of mistakes or errors that could have serious consequences. It is also a massive opportunity cost. That is why the RSPB says that the Bill will
“derail urgent action to tackle the nature and climate crisis”
by consuming the resources of departments. Amid a recession and a cost of living crisis, can frantically combing through a back catalogue of law against a self-imposed deadline really be the right use of Civil Service time? I know that many members of the Minister’s own party share these reservations about the sunset clause. It is not a partisan point; it is about competent government—and that brings me to my third principal objection.
This Bill puts at risk many crucial rights and standards and expects trust in the Secretary of State to be a substitute for legal protection. Let us just consider some of the areas covered by retained EU law, such as environmental protection, food safety, civil aviation codes, noise pollution, biosecurity, vehicle standards and employment law. Many of these protections were hard fought and hard won. They cannot be crudely dismissed as abstract red tape. Protections for pregnant women from workforce discrimination, paid annual leave, parental leave, protections for part-time employees, limits on weekly working hours—many of these rights and protections disproportionately affect women and the impact assessment recognises in three separate paragraphs that the Bill contains a threat to equality.
We cannot accept a situation in which these vital protections could be changed at the whim of the Business Secretary. This is made worse by Clause 15, which confirms that rights and protections can go in only one direction: down. The requirement to not increase burdens ensures there can be no race to the top on standards and rights. We must be clear that diminishing our standards could have serious implications for trade. It will complicate the issues created by the Northern Ireland protocol, make it harder to remove barriers in the Irish Sea and could create new difficulties in our trade with the EU.
Finally, I want to address the lack of scrutiny and accountability. This is another Bill brought forward in the name of Brexit that, rather than restoring parliamentary sovereignty, continues a trend of growing executive power. The Bill sidelines Parliament, minimises scrutiny, weakens accountability and hands Ministers unreasonable and unjustifiable powers. To do so in the name of democracy is double-speak.
The Bill contains no requirement for public consultation or impact assessments of proposed changes. Any parliamentarian who wishes to scrutinise or object to  future legislation replacing retained law will be taking a gamble because, unless that legislation is passed in time, the current law in its entirety will simply fall away. The sunset clause puts a gun to Parliament’s head. This cannot be the right way to make law in our country.
While we acknowledge that the Bill has passed in the other place and will not frustrate it, we continue to have grave concerns about this legislation. It threatens workers’ rights, environmental standards and consumer protections. It puts our country on course to a self-imposed cliff edge. It undermines scrutiny and accountability and will weaken Parliament. We will seek to amend the legislation to address these issues.
This Bill rests on a fundamentally simplistic and inaccurate view of what regulation is and who it is for. The Government are trying to please some fantasy version of business, still fighting Brexit ghosts in their heads. But business does not want an uncontrolled bonfire of regulation. The truth is that good regulation enables business and trade. It creates stability and predictability. It raises standards. It protects companies as well as consumers, employers as well as workers. The truth is this Bill is a political hangover—the last promise of a Government who collapsed as they made contact with reality. While people are still paying the price in higher mortgage bills, the Government can still spare the public and business the disruption this Bill will generate. I urge them to change course now.

Lord Frost: My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance at last to speak again on one of my favourite subjects: getting rid of retained EU law from our statute book and supporting the Bill. It is also a pleasure to speak straight after the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman; I very much enjoyed our discussions across the Dispatch Box in 2021, but I am also glad that her undoubted eloquence, of which we have just heard another sample, and her untiring efforts have not yet succeeded in slowing the progress towards getting rid of the effect of EU law in this country.
I make that point because the immediate origins of the Bill lie in decisions I took as a Minister in 2021. But the real origins obviously go much further back: they are part of the logic of delivering a meaningful Brexit in which we have extricated ourselves properly and fully from the EU legal framework, and of the vision on which this party won an election in 2019.
We know the situation: we have on our statute book virtually all the laws we took on in the period of EU membership, thanks to the 2018 withdrawal Act. This came with all the related interpretative concepts: the supremacy of EU law, ECJ jurisprudence and so on. We even upgraded those laws to the status of primary legislation and prevented British courts from reinterpreting EU law doctrines. The effect has been to create a defined body of law, with its own concepts and rules, within the UK statute book. Obviously, such an arrangement can only be provisional; it can only ever be a “short-term bridging measure”, as I described it in a Statement in December 2021.
When it passes, the Bill will bring that situation to an end. It is the product of the work that began in 2021, when I announced that the Government would  conduct a review that would start the process of removing the special status of retained EU and reviewing its content comprehensively. That review is complete, and the corpus of law is known. The Bill gives Ministers the necessary powers not only to deal with law on the statute book but to remove interpretive principles, such as those in Clause 4 of the 2018 Act. It is worth dwelling on that point: it is not even clear what law was retained by that clause, as has been noted. It simply enables lawyers to say, “Whatever the law was before, it now is afterwards”—and we cannot live with that sort of uncertainty on our statute book.
Getting this right is necessary to make Brexit work properly. It may be that some noble Lords in this Chamber opposed Brexit and do not want it to work—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Frost: I know it is hard to believe. I would understand their opposition to the Bill. But noble Lords who profess to accept Brexit surely must accept the logic of the Bill. It makes no sense for this whole body of rules with special status to remain in place on our statute book for a prolonged period. Practically, our lawyers, judges and civil servants cannot deal with two separate statute books, with completely different interpretive principles and case law. We must find a way of changing this and assimilating these laws into our legal system, adjusting and redrafting as necessary.
I recognise that some critics of the Bill will say, “We accept that, but the pace and the process are the problem”. Responding to that, I point to the nature of the powers that will be granted, the criticism of which has been absurdly exaggerated. They are targeted at a specific set of laws, and they exclude any powers to deal with the fundamentals of primary legislation; they are about secondary legislation changing secondary legislation. I cannot see the difficulty with this. It is relevant that this legislation was passed by a body outside this country, often against the opposition of this Government.
To finish, these inherited EU laws have little real legitimacy now that we have left the system that created them. We cannot leave them there for decades while we get around to passing endless primary legislation to replace laws that never came in in that way in the first place.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: The noble Lord really must draw his comments to a close.

Lord Frost: I will do. We lived for 47 years under a system in which we did not control our own laws. The Bill is not only necessary and essential; it is unavoidable and part of the logic of Brexit. I look forward to supporting it now and in Committee.

Lord Rooker: Your Lordships’ House has been sent the Bill by the elected House of Commons to, in effect, snuff out the elected House of Commons from its role in primary legislation and to subordinate Parliament to Ministers in respect of nearly 4,000 items of legislation, in which the elected House will have no role. I was not sent to this House in 2001 to oversee the  dismantling of the accountability of the Government to Parliament in order to make Parliament accountable to Government.
The Government’s delegated powers memorandum indicates in paragraph B that a key role of the Bill is
“restoring the primacy of Acts of Parliament in UK statute.”
That is not achieved by the Bill. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 made repeated references to Parliament making the changes to law after the exit from the EU. However, according to the Bill, Ministers alone will decide what happens to retained EU law, with no role for Parliament.
Members will have seen the delegated powers report on the Bill. Our approach is meticulous and concerned not with policy but with the use of delegated powers. These are constructed in a way to remove power from Parliament. In fact, the Bill is the concluding evidence that the Government have not intended, are not intending and do not intend to pay the slightest attention to the reports debated as recently as 12 January, Democracy Denied? and Government by Diktat. There is one group that ignores the reports at its peril and ours: the group drafting the legislation. Its members are clever and know what they are doing: they are following orders from Ministers in a way that their predecessors from a couple of decades ago would not recognise. Those who drafted Bills were a constraint on Ministers stepping over the line—not any more. Parliamentary counsel are wholly owned by the Government; they work for, and are accountable to, the Government and not Parliament. They are currently located in the heart of government departments, rather than in their own buildings. In July last year at a joint meeting of the Delegated Powers Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, when I asked the First Parliamentary Counsel about the current process, Dame Elizabeth Gardiner said:
“I think things have changed a lot.”
Yes, they have; and the Bill is proof that government counsel are not fit for purpose as far as the primacy of Parliament and the House of Commons is concerned. I do not buy the “only following orders” defence given by Dame Elizabeth when she said that
“we have a key role in what the Bill looks like, but we do not decide on its contents”;
it is
“a political and policy decision.”
If they had any professional self-respect, there would have been a resignation of counsel on a par with that of Sir Jonathan Jones, the former head of the Government Legal Service, in 2020. Anyone associated with drafting the Bill should not be welcome in a regime that believes that the Government are accountable to Parliament.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, the sheer number of speakers is an indication of just how concerned Members of this House are about this legislation. At the time of the Brexit vote, the Government promised that reforming the laws previously vested in Europe would rest solely with Parliament, giving both Houses the opportunity to  review legislation suitable for the country. However, what we have before us is the exact opposite: the power to restate, revoke, replace or update retained EU legislation will rest entirely in the hands of Ministers. That is neither what the public voted for in 2016, nor what was contained in the Brexit Bill of 2018. The DPRRC is damming in its 25th report; other speakers will doubtless refer to it.
There is widespread concern that the Bill, in its current form, does not have the support of environmentalists across the country. Given the earlier short debate on the environmental improvement plan, which promises much, it is disappointing that the Bill makes little attempt to support the EIP.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 protect more than 50 native UK species, many residing in special protection areas and special areas of conservation. These habitats will need protection if the UK is to meet its obligations under the GBF’s 30 by 30. Revoking this piece of legislation will have a catastrophic effect on endangered species.
In four minutes, it is impossible to deal with how concerned those involved in animal welfare, biodiversity, farming and food production are about the loss of legislation which has helped to protect our health and countryside. Some 44 existing laws concerning animal welfare could all be deleted by this Bill in a single stroke.
The NFU, while welcoming a review of retained EU laws, is very concerned at the speed with which it is proposed this will be carried out and that any EU-originated law that exists beyond 2023 will be referred to as “assimilated law”. It has disquiet that legislation will be discarded without a proper assessment, including vital stakeholder consultation.
Will the Government give firm assurances that this process can be undertaken with due care and attention, while properly involving stakeholders, in the short timeframe proposed? Will the Government also ensure that sufficient parliamentary oversight will be provided, given the significant impact on farming businesses, so essential to food production?
The Government’s dashboard gives a rough indication of the number of pieces of legislation to be dealt with. This started at 2,500 and has risen to over 3,500. Of these, Defra has the largest group of all. Some of the briefs I have received set this figure at 1,700. If we assume that the process of sifting through begins the moment the Bill finishes its passage in approximately mid-March, taking every sitting day from Monday to Thursday until 23 December—approximately 107 sitting days, excluding Fridays—and if Defra has 1,700 pieces of legislation to review in under 300 days and MPs and Peers have 107 sitting days to oversee the legislation and make any corrections necessary, it is quite clear that this quart is not going to fit into the pint pot and there will be very considerable spillage.

Lord Judge: My Lords, I think I am the only Member of the House who received this letter by special messenger. Having received it, I think I had better read it to your Lordships. It is from the Executive and it is called “Restoring Parliamentary control”. This is how it reads, ignoring the introductions:
“To achieve the object of restoring control back to Parliament, please would you surrender to the Executive powers to repeal or otherwise nullify or dispose of as we think fit some 4,000 or so statutory instruments of great public importance, such as employment laws, environment laws, food safety laws, et cetera (which covers existing laws of which we are still unaware)? These laws were imposed on us by the European Union, but we do have to admit that was with your consent in 1972 in primary legislation. In any event, that is a long time ago and we can reduce the troublesome processes of consent to a virtual formality which would save you all much time and work.
We shall exercise these new revocation powers by the end of the year, but we do not yet know what we shall replace them with. But if we do not manage to replace them or any of them, notwithstanding the urgency, we shall do so by June 2026 or whenever.
Now we must clarify the replacement process. Please would you also surrender to the Executive powers to decide which of three distinct processes may be used for the replacement process for each individual statutory instrument? These are: first, power to decide not to replace any of the relevant laws that we have revoked; secondly, on whatever basis that we think appropriate to replace such laws to achieve their or similar objectives; and, thirdly, to make fresh new laws to cover the topics addressed in the 4,000 or so statutory instruments which have been revoked and make alternative provisions, whether or not the provision achieves the same or similar objectives, as we think appropriate.
Finally, we ask you to surrender power to us to enable the use of secondary legislation to change any existing statute which may have any bearing on the exercise of any of the powers you have surrendered to us in relation to the 4,000 statutory instruments. PS Existing statute includes this very Act itself.
By agreeing to all these separate surrenders, Parliament will have taken back control. We trust you agree.”

Lord Lilley: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the very witty speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Whenever I negotiated laws in Brussels, my ministerial brief usually began, “We don’t want this measure, Minister, but we cannot stop it. The best we can hope is to negotiate one or two amendments from the long list we have proposed to you”. I therefore fully support the need to revise, retain or repeal EU law and I urge Ministers to rake out these old negotiating briefs, which will reduce the burden of work on departments when deciding what revisions to propose.
That said, I largely share the concerns expressed by noble Lords about the constraints on parliamentary scrutiny and the limited time to complete this process. I understand their fears that this could result in poor revision, and even wholesale repeal of necessary legislation. However, I also understand the fears that led the Government to adopt this tight timetable, and I think the latter fears negate and should dispel the former. Let me explain why. As parliamentarians, especially in this Chamber, whose only power is to make the other House consider our amendments and arguments, we  are bound to want the maximum time and strongest procedures to fulfil that function. It is true that almost all these 4,000 laws went through Parliament under the biggest Henry VIII clause of all time—the European Communities Act 1972—with little debate and without a vote, and they would have become law even if every Member of this and the other House had voted against them.
Many noble Lords now calling for more scrutiny never complained about that lack of scrutiny in the past. I rejoice in their damascene conversion to the supremacy of Parliament—there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than 99 just men who need no repentance—but when they suggest that taking back control is meaningless without maximal parliamentary scrutiny, they are exaggerating the purpose of Brexit with the zeal of converts. Brexit was, above all, about the British people getting back control. As my referendum leaflet put it:
“In a democracy, if the Government does not deliver ... the people can throw them out.”
The Government will be accountable to the British people at the next election, not least for how they handle these 4,000 laws, and that is the accountability that lies behind the timetable the Government have set for getting this done. I was surprised by the timetable and when I asked Ministers to take it at a more leisurely pace, they explained that it is essential to complete this process before the next election, not because we promised to get Brexit done but, above all, because this is the only way we can prove to the electorate that the scare stories about the process that we heard today are false. Completing the process will show that the Bill was not about removing workers’ rights or demolishing environmental protection or safety standards; nor will it result in huge gaps in our law book. The fact that the Government intend to complete this process in time to face up to their accountability to the electorate makes most of the scare stories ring hollow.
If we had world enough and time, we would undertake this process in a more leisurely fashion, but we do not, so I entirely support my noble friend’s wish to get it done as speedily as possible by processes that are as rigorous as those by which the legislation was introduced, and thereby demonstrate that all the scare stories are untrue.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, with the agreement of the usual channels, I have swapped places in the batting order with my noble friend Lady Andrews. I look forward with great pleasure to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, and, in particular, my noble friend Lady O’Grady. She has done a lot for this country; the calm, decent way in which she has expressed common-sense views has raised the stature of the trade union movement in British society. That is one reason why, in the present wave of industrial unrest, the Government cannot pin the blame on the trade unions as they have so often successfully done in the past.
This must rank as one of the silliest pieces of legislation ever to come before Parliament. I was surprised to see the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his place to  defend the Bill, because the strategy it sets out is completely different from what he advocated when he presented the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to us some time ago. I do not know quite how he justifies this change of position. This legislation is not necessary to get Brexit done. That legislation was. He put forward the withdrawal Bill and we retained in British law the legislative output of nearly 50 years of EU membership, the vast majority of which—with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—the British Government certainly agreed to. In some cases, such as that relating to the single market, they pioneered and promoted it.
The approach now being adopted is quite different. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that we would incorporate EU law and take a rational, sectoral approach to trying to change it in the light of what we thought the main challenges of Brexit would be. That rational approach has been abandoned. I would have hoped that this sectoral approach would continue; I am glad that the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, is conducting these studies—that is fine—but to put an atomic bomb, totally irrationally, under what is in our statute is ridiculous.
When we debated Brexit, the Government told us that we would have higher standards in a lot of areas than we had enjoyed in the EU. Michael Gove was adamant on this in terms of environment and farming, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was always telling us how we would have higher standards in employment. However, the fact is that this legislation does not permit higher standards; it allows only a lowering of standards. That is why it is so objectionable.
I am out of time but could go on about this for ever. It is a disgraceful piece of legislation and I hope that this House will tear it apart.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, “Take back control” was a tempting offer. EU processes are often slow and frustrating; Brexiteers call them undemocratic but, if anything, they suffer from democracy overload—layers of decision-making subject to repeated democratic checks and balances. On the plus side, so many cooks stirring the broth rarely get the recipe wrong. However, with this Bill, all pretence has been dropped. The DPRRC calls it a “hyper-skeletal” Bill giving “extraordinary powers” to Ministers and, importantly, says:
“Ministers, not Parliament, will be responsible for determining what stays, what goes and what, if anything, is to replace what goes.”
I wish to touch on two issues, the first of which is devolution. The Bill does not just take powers from Parliament; it also takes powers from the devolved Administrations. It un-devolves powers. Clause 2 allows UK Ministers to defer the guillotine until 2026, but Ministers in the DAs, which have previously held powers over many of these areas, are not able to defer the guillotine. I realise it will not worry the Government, but it is almost certain that the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament will not grant legislative consent.
On transport, this massive clearance sale of EU laws creates uncertainty. We do not know which will go and which will stay. The dashboard currently has 424 transport laws. When will the full list be published?  Businesses must know where they stand: lack of democracy is compounded by a lack of transparency. How can we be debating a Bill which gives Ministers powers to change or repeal thousands of pieces of legislation, but we do not know how many and we do not know which ones. Clearly, the Department for Transport does not have the capacity to deal with this avalanche. This is the department that got 20 years behind in updating maritime legislation in line with our international treaty commitments. Rail cancellations and delays are at an all-time high, but the department does not have the time to introduce the Williams-Shapps reforms. It cannot find the time for long overdue legislation to regulate e-scooters. Our vehicle manufacturing industry risks terminal decline, but the Government cannot find time to update our vehicle standards legislation to bring it into line with the suite of EU vehicle safety regulations introduced last year. Those regulations save lives, and they help our manufacturers who need our standards to mirror those in the EU, which is their main export market. Over 4,000 pages of this legislation relate to aircraft safety, and I have yet to find anyone in the aviation sector who wants a comma of it changed. But the Government did find time last year to consult on their proposal to reduce our right to claim compensation for cancelled internal flights—an example, I think, of one of our Brexit freedoms.
Three years ago, the Government embarked on creating 32 common frameworks to regulate the way this legislation is dealt with alongside devolved Administrations. It was supposed to take a year; it has taken more three years. Finally, transposing EU law into UK law over a period of years is a reasonable aim; dealing with 4,000 pieces of legislation in 10 months by ministerial diktat is not. Either this Bill is a result of massive incompetence, or this is what totalitarianism looks like.

Lord Wilson of Dinton: My Lords, like previous speakers, I welcome the maiden speeches we are going to hear and say that this is a very friendly gathering, and they will find they enjoy taking part in it.
I regret to say they have chosen to speak on what, in my view, is a bad Bill. There is no way you can get away from it. It is a bad Bill because it will create uncertainty in business and in our communities, and your Lordships have heard about the number of organisations which have made that clear. It is a bad Bill because it could do real harm in all sorts of areas by meddling very fast with things that matter to the community. Above all, it is a shocking Bill because it will undermine Parliament to a degree which, I think, is unprecedented by giving sweeping powers to the Executive. It will make important changes as a precedent to the way we do legislation. It is very important that Parliament asserts itself. If we are going to restore power and sovereignty to Parliament, this Bill is not restoring sovereignty to Parliament but taking it away.
What is the strategic objective that this Bill is meant to serve? I cannot see one. The only one is the wish to purge our statute book of EU-derived law and get rid of a ball and chain. That is an emotion. It is a strong emotion, but there is a policy void, and most good  legislation comes in a context that makes sense. The body of EU-derived law that we have in this country, which is going to be abolished, has been built up and assimilated with the British legal system over 40 years or longer, in close consultation with businesses and communities affected, environmentally and otherwise. To throw it all out overnight will create a huge void in our legal system. There is not enough time for government to devise new measures to fill that void, let alone consult with business and others about them. This is a task for 10 years, not 10 months. It will take a huge amount of Civil Service time, which I would have thought, if I was head of the service still, was needed for other things that are also high priorities in our community.
Does all the law need to be replaced? Does it all need to be abolished in this time, aside from the law that is exempted? Let us be honest: some of the things the EU made us do over the years has been good. I am not going to embarrass my former Ministers, but I have had Ministers who have been delighted that the EU has pressed the British Government to do things they could not get their colleagues to do. That happened more than once. There are many examples where we have benefited from EU law, not least in facilitating trade. I find it very hard to understand. The EU is why we want to diverge from our largest trading partner. Why are we so intent on creating trade barriers? Why do we want our legal standards to diverge and make trade more difficult? Why are the Government so determined to make life difficult for British business, which is what this Bill is actually about?
If the EU-derived law is doing harm, let us identify that, have legislation and talk about it. Here, as so often, the hard work has not been done. Brexit is past; what we need to do now is find ways of exploiting the opportunities. Positive, hard work needs to be done: we need to go through the legal system to work out strategies for those industries that could benefit and bring legislation forward to Parliament, restore parliamentary sovereignty and work out ways to take advantage of Brexit—not just express emotion about Europe. I have learned through my career that there is such a thing as good government and there is such a thing as bad government. This Bill, I am sorry to say, is bad government.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I must begin by welcoming the maiden speakers to this debate this afternoon. Thinking about the subject of our discussion, I cannot recall from my experience a more spurious case for legislation than the one advanced in support of this Bill. The reason I say that is that the legislation subject to the provisions of the Bill was put on the statute book by the British Parliament in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. That is how we do these things in this country. It is a British law, like any other, subject to all the usual, time-honoured mechanisms, procedures, safeguards and conventions. The Bill adds nothing to what can be done already. It merely threatens further weakening of the checks and balances of our constitutional arrangements, as has been pointed out from all around the House, including by the Minister.
I probably ought to sit down having said that. But there is a lot of contextual noise that has a bearing on our debate. As the noble Lord who spoke before me said, Brexit is done. Brexit is now the one of the “vanished pomps of yesterday”—
“one with Nineveh and Tyre!”
What matters is the future. A Government’s convenience matters—particularly to the Government—but it is not a reason in itself to change our nation’s constitutional equilibrium and balance. What I might describe as “shorthand” legislation on contentious issues undermines the workings of our democratic process, which provides political legitimacy to our Governments and, in particular, to the acceptance of legislation with which one disagrees.
As has been said already in this debate, the relationship between the Executive and Parliament has already moved too far away from Parliament and should not be allowed to go further. Speakers have commented that many businesses of all kinds are, in the face of very considerable adversity, trading into the single market, albeit considerably less than hitherto. Gratuitous divergence from single market standards threatens industry and commerce, particularly those involved in supply chains.
The country is in a mess of all kinds. Resolving that should be our national priority, not promoting this particular piece of self-indulgent and frivolous distraction, trying to build a New Jerusalem in a few months. In short, it is simple: as has been said, reasoned change, good; what is proposed, bad. In a form of words I never thought I would use in this House, the case for this legislation is collapsing under its own internal contradictions; it should not be resuscitated and should be allowed to die where it falls.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I rise to speak with mixed emotions on this piece of legislation. On the one hand, I voted to leave, and I have had no reason in my mind to change that view. I think the world order based on the individual nation state, which emerged after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, has still some time to run. It may come to an end, but the nation state remains the basic building block, and that is why I voted to leave. As a result of that, my noble friend will be pleased to hear that I enthusiastically support the purposes behind this Bill—the “untangling” I think was the phrase he used in his opening remarks. But I am also a democrat, and I believe very strongly in maintaining an appropriate balance of power between the Government and Parliament.
Members of your Lordships’ House will be aware that, until Tuesday a week ago, I was for three and a half years chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and some of our work has been very kindly referred to already this afternoon. During that three-and-a-half-year period, I am afraid I saw the Government begin to accrete powers at the expense of Parliament in various ways, but specifically by the use of what I call framework or skeleton Bills, in which only the broadest sense of the direction of policy travel is given, and all the detail is given in secondary legislation. Of course, we know that secondary legislation  has a much lower level of scrutiny and, in particular, that it cannot be amended. Over the past year, the SLSC has produced a number of reports detailing this. Government by Diktat has been referred to already. My last task as chairman was to sign off the report we made on this Bill, which we titled Losing Control?: The Implications for Parliament of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. From that, it will be seen that I am not entirely happy with the position we now find ourselves in.
There are three things my noble friend could usefully think about to try to bridge the gap with those who would wish to support the principle and yet have some difficulty with the practice. The first would be the establishment of a proper triaging process to distinguish what is serious from what is trivial. Of the 600 or 700 regulations the SLSC looks at every year, probably more than two-thirds are quite uncontroversial, and I dare say the same will be true when we come to consider the 4,000 or so EU regulations that will come before us. There is no need, in my view, to get the vapours about that. But we definitely need a better procedure to examine that small number of regulations that carry significant policy implications. The procedure should, in my view, at the very least carry the opportunity for Parliament to ask the Government to think again.
I have two further quick suggestions in my last 45 seconds. First, I hope the Government will undertake to produce impact assessments for all the regulations they intend to change. It is important, because good impact assessments are not just about the money; they are how we learn about the thinking that went on, how the Government reached the decision they did and why certain policy options were adopted and others were not. Finally, we need a statutory undertaking to undertake post-implementation reviews—PIRs—on all regulations. PIRs show what happens when hope meets reality, and it is an important part of good governance that Governments should learn from past mistakes. It will be exceptionally important that we do that as we enter this new phase in our way of governing ourselves. I hope my noble friend can consider those as a way of meeting some of the concerns around the House without losing his particular objective.

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the warmth of your welcome. In particular, my thanks are due to my noble friends Lady Prosser and Lord Monks, who guided me through my introduction, which was no easy task. I am all too aware that I have a lot to learn. I also thank the House of Lords staff for their support. As a former TUC leader, it is good to know that so many brilliant staff here are proud trade unionists too.
Many of the rights and liberties we cherish as a country began with working people standing together. In 1968, Rose Boland and the Ford sewing machinists went on strike for equal pay, which was a catalyst for the introduction of the Equal Pay Act. Many years later, their story was made into a popular British film, “Made in Dagenham”, which opened to rave reviews right across the media. But back in 1968, some of  those same newspapers were far from sympathetic to the women’s action—a reminder that those who demonise workers on strike for fair pay today may well find themselves on the wrong side of history. Of course, the UK’s Equal Pay Act proved limited. It took EU directives to introduce the much more ambitious principle of equal pay for work of equal value, so I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this important debate about a Bill which the RPC has deemed, in terms of its impact assessment, “not fit for purpose”.
So many of the rights we rely on as workers were derived from the EU—for example, maternity rights. It is true, as we have heard, that the UK now provides more weeks of paid maternity leave than the minimum the EU set back then, although, shamefully, UK maternity provision is still a lot less generous than in many other European countries. In any case, this is not the whole story. EU law introduced other vital protections, including paid time off for antenatal appointments; new health and safety rights; and, where reasonable for new mums, the right to return to the same job. For pregnant women and new mothers, these rights really matter too and should not be casually overlooked. There are many other examples where EU-derived law lifted standards here, such as protection for workers whose jobs are outsourced or whose company becomes insolvent; equal pay and pensions for part-time workers; and, of course, limits on dangerously long working hours.
Good law is rarely made within arbitrary deadlines, without proper parliamentary scrutiny, and without listening to organisations that have real-world experience, expertise and—if I dare say it—a bit of shop-floor wisdom. Instead, as parliamentary committees have warned, the Bill gives Ministers unprecedented powers to disappear vital laws from the statute book, or to replace them with something worse. Ministers promise that there is no intention to rip up or water down rights, but the Bill prohibits the inclusion of so-called burdens ordained to be an obstacle to “profitability”. If that is the test, it is no wonder that workers are worried.
There could be implications for Britain’s trade, and therefore jobs, too. No doubt this House will keep a close eye on the “level playing field” labour clauses enshrined in the agreement with the EU that the UK Government signed up to. Back in 2019, Ministers also promised a new employment Bill which many hoped would tackle the British disease of zero-hours contracts, bogus self-employment and fire and rehire, but we are still waiting. It seems that there is a difference between a promise and a guarantee.
From Carillion and Amazon to Sports Direct and P&O Ferries, many working people feel that the scales of workplace justice are rigged against them. Profits, boardroom pay and shareholder payouts are up, but real wages are down. Surely the priority should be stronger collective rights for workers—ensuring that the decent employer is not undercut by the bad—and growing a greener economy built on fair trade, fair taxes and fair shares of the wealth that workers create.
I am a girl from Oxford—town, but not gown. Early in my working life, I was employed serving tables in Oxford colleges, but thankfully not in the Bullingdon Club. Ever since, I have always believed  that whatever our race, religion or background, everyone should be treated with dignity and respect at work. I know that these are values which many across this House share, and I hope they will guide us when considering this bad Bill’s threat to rights which workers across generations and borders campaigned so hard to win.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is a great privilege to congratulate my noble friend on her marvellous maiden speech. It could not have been better. It was much anticipated, and she lived up to every expectation. It was inspirational, because that is the business she has been in all her life. Her speech told us as much about her character as her career and convictions and the way she lives her values. She spoke with huge authority about the long fight for fairness in the workplace and for equal rights, but she did not, because she is so modest, tell us about her own role over the years in achieving so much. She brings all that together with moderation and real-world knowledge, which is a winning combination in this House. Above all, as the first woman leader of the TUC, she knows what it takes to change things for the better, which is probably why her choice of discs on “Desert Island Discs” included Sam Cooke’s “A Change Is Gonna Come”. I think we had a taste of that in her maiden speech, and I am sure that is what we can look forward to in her role in this House. We are proud not just on these Benches; she will be an asset to the whole House.
I turn after that moment of optimism to the grim realities of the Bill in front of us. In the words of one Minister in this House, the scale of the task it represents against a disingenuous and unachievable timeline is “herculean”. The deliberate risks that the Government are prepared to take in the face of huge public anxiety, with the rush to the cliff edge over which many vital laws will be thrown because they will be misjudged and misplaced—just lost in chaotic processes—are unconscionable.
The Bill tells us nothing. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has had to invent a special term for it: “hyper-skeletal”. It seems to be just a bundle of twitching nerve ends. As for being surprised that there are so few impacts, how can they be assessed? Nobody knows or can predict at this moment which laws will survive or not, or why, whether and how they will be replaced or amended. We are looking at a dystopian future when we will know how bad the damage is only when it is done and it is too late to put it right. The president of the Law Society describes this dislodging of the law as “devastating”.
Some things are certain: first, that the task of choosing the fate of SIs has been delegated to civil servants across Whitehall, who will in effect have the power to decide on behalf of Wales and Scotland as well.Secondly, of course, as many noble Lords have referred to, the Bill gives Ministers undreamed-of powers to abolish and make laws without accounting for how they will work, powers that are justified, frivolously, as being driven by urgency—the only urgency being ministerial ambition and, clearly, the electoral timetable. In its report, the DPRRC simply calls for the removal from the Bill of those clauses which give  excessive powers to Ministers. I hope the House will support that; does the Minister intend to follow the recommendations of the DPRRC?
Further, the Bill attacks the devolution settlement in principle and practice. Ministers in Wales and Scotland have not been consulted and they cannot extend the sunset clause. The Bill fundamentally invites and accelerates divergence and, with it, the further fragmentation of the UK. It includes the possibility of a UK Minister making regulations that impact on policy areas that have been devolved, with no requirement to consult or consent. It is hardly surprising that Wales and Scotland may well withhold consent.
Common frameworks have already been touched on—I speak personally this afternoon and not as chair of that committee. They are the positive and practical expression of how the union is building co-operation as the four countries work together across the internal market, enabling each country to make different choices without disruption. They affect everyday life, for everything from environmental safety to public health. They are underpinned by a cat’s cradle of hundreds if not thousands of complicated, interrelated SIs. Ministers tell us that if anything should go wrong with the judgment afforded these SIs, the disputes process in the frameworks will resolve any future problems. That is nonsense. If common frameworks are destabilised, there will be greater threats to the internal market and the devolution settlement. Will the Minister answer my other question tonight? Does he intend to press ahead with the Bill without the consent of Wales and Scotland, and will he, for safety’s sake, exempt common frameworks from the Bill entirely?
The explanatory memorandum says that the Bill is intended to return lawmaking powers to Parliament—a travesty of language and logic. The Bill empowers Ministers to make laws while leaving Parliament powerless. It is indefensible and must be changed in this House.

Lord Beith: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on her maiden speech. Her experience and knowledge of the world of industrial relations will be of genuine and timely value to this House in current circumstances.
When we left the EU, it was pretty obvious what we should do about European law. We should take a snapshot of it, which we now call retained European law, and amend it, as need and as changing circumstances dictated, much as we would other forms of existing law. We should bear in mind that this law had not been handed down like tablets of stone; it had been the subject of extensive processes of amendment and examination in the European Parliament in which British MEPs played a significant part—including, I trust, the Minister when he was in that role. Instead, however, we have a triumph of dogma over common sense, in which all this European law is supposed to be junked by Christmas, except perhaps for those laws that will appear on a list, which either exists and is not disclosed by Ministers or is a blank sheet of paper—which, in a way, is a little more worrying. However, their unwillingness to tell us what will be on the 2026 list illustrates the contempt with which Parliament is viewed  in this whole process. This is not taking back control but is a massive surrender of parliamentary sovereignty and is augmented by numerous other provisions in the Bill allowing for statutory instruments to change the content of retained EU law.
What are the processes by which Parliament will make changes to retained European law? It will be via negative instruments, which are not even guaranteed a debate in the Commons, and affirmative instruments, which are subject to a vote in both Houses but cannot be amended in any way. In this House, there are those of our own Members who question whether we should reject a clearly and plainly defective statutory instrument because of the primacy that is supposed to attach to the elected House. If we accept that view, the process is null and void. If there are no circumstances in which the instrument can be rejected for lack of appropriate amendment, the power is not a real one. EU law covers areas where detailed discussion and assessment will be required—environmental standards, consumer protection and water quality—and the only real negotiations may be between the Government and the very interests we are trying to regulate, some of which have close links to this Government anyway.
I have described the process as a triumph of dogma over common sense. That is also illustrated by the name change, “assimilated”—of course, we have to describe it as that because there are those who cannot bear to admit that these laws were made in Europe. They were—it is a fact; it is history; get over it and accept that they are currently part of our system. The other weakness of the Government’s position is that they have set themselves an examination that they are bound to fail. The department simply does not have the qualified personnel to rewrite between 3,000 and 4,000 pieces of legislation, primary and secondary—it is not there. Week by week in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I have observed what effort is required to make secondary legislation compliant with the parent legislation and to make it good law capable of being used by those among whom it will be enforced. We saw during the Covid period that if the time pressure becomes severe, serious mistakes are made. We saw serious mistakes being made, with people being arrested who should not have been. That kind of consequence will follow if we rush this process through.
It is difficult to find anything favourable to say about the abandonment of a fairly sensible process of gradual modification of law where required for one which junks laws and has no adequate process for replacing them. I am afraid that the Executive have put their tanks on Parliament’s lawn, and they should be taken away.

Lord Janvrin: My Lords, I too offer a warm welcome to our two maiden speakers in this debate this afternoon.
As the debate is undoubtedly demonstrating, there are many features in this deeply controversial Bill which will merit a lot of discussion in this House, not least the pressures of the sunset clauses and the interests  of devolved Administrations. In the limited time available I want as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee to concentrate on the issues raised by its report on the Bill.
One of the more compelling political arguments deployed in favour of Brexit was that the European Union lacked democratic accountability. It is ironic therefore that the Bill gives, in the words of the Delegated Powers Committee report, “a blank cheque” to Ministers to revoke, replace or update retained EU law by statutory instrument—a form of legislation which is subject only to limited scrutiny by Parliament. The Delegated Powers Committee report sets out at some length why this blank cheque is unacceptable and why some of the key clauses in the Bill confer inappropriate powers on Ministers.
The House will no doubt explore these issues at length in Committee, but I want to make a wider point. Many of the concerns expressed in the Delegated Powers Committee report would not arise if secondary legislation was subject to a process of more effective scrutiny by Parliament, both by the Lords and the Commons. If ever there was a reason for updated procedures to empower Parliament—in particular including the Commons—to sift, scrutinise, debate and, where appropriate, amend secondary legislation, it is surely this Bill.
Effective scrutiny makes better law. This issue affects every citizen—all of us. We need a new approach and we need a new Statutory Instruments Act. We can perhaps discern something of a drumbeat in favour of reform in the recent reports from the two scrutiny committees and the debate we had on them last month in this Chamber. The Hansard Society will set out its ideas later this week.
Whatever else it does, the Bill highlights dramatically the need for effective scrutiny of secondary legislation. This issue goes to the very heart of the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. It is ultimately about public trust in our democratic system, and we ignore it at our peril.

Baroness Hoey: My Lords, for a number of years I was a member in the other House of the European Scrutiny Committee, under the formidable chairmanship of Sir William Cash—I expect that he will be a noble Lord eventually. I say “formidable” because he had a fervent eye for transparency and detail and a determination for scrutiny to be carried out with an attitude almost of zealotry. Sadly, the scrutiny that we had there did not mean that we could amend or stop the huge weekly package of new EU directives and regulations that came through. Occasionally, we would get a debate, if we or another Select Committee could manage it, but the result was always, as we know, that once the EU had agreed to something, it was difficult to change it. Therefore, I welcome a Bill that abolishes the supremacy of EU law.
I find it a little depressing that many in your Lordships’ House seem to have more faith in the European Union to deliver than in our own country’s ability to decide its own laws. There seems to be this misty-eyed view that the only institution that could really be trusted could never be our Government—of whatever political  party—but could only be the European Union. Yet we know that so many of the rights that we got came originally from the campaigning of trade unions, which got Labour and Conservative Governments to bring into law some of our rights. It was not just about the EU.
rule of a foreign institution. Already we have seen dozens of changes to regulations brought in which have had no discussion or democratic consent in Northern Ireland. Even if the Assembly was sitting, it would make no difference. The EU makes changes which GB does not have to follow, but in Northern Ireland they do.
Noble Lords will be fed up with me saying this, but I reiterate that we in Northern Ireland had the same ballot paper on the referendum. Yes, there was a majority to remain, just as there was in Scotland, but at least Scotland is covered by this Bill under the arrangements for devolved Administrations, while Northern Ireland cannot benefit from any of it. The protocol carefully plotted by the EU, encouraged by the Irish Government and, sadly, agreed to by our Government, was not about trade; it is about trying to ensure that the divergence between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is reduced. By retaining Northern Ireland in the same single market as the Republic, under the same customs code and VAT regime, and being governed by the same laws, Northern Ireland is slowly being pushed away from Great Britain, our biggest market, and forced into an economic Ireland, which is, of course, a foreign country. This may have been a grave mistake by our negotiators, but it was certainly not a mistake by the Irish Government. It was an assault on Northern Ireland’s constitutional position and, sadly, our Government naively went along with it.
Obviously, in Committee there will be changes to this Bill, and it might get greater scrutiny. However, I say to those here who are concerned about the scrutiny of this Bill—and plead to noble Lords to remember—that, while we are talking about scrutiny of something that Ministers at least can get involved in, in Northern Ireland we are putting through more and more regulations from the European Union that nobody in this House, nobody in Northern Ireland and nobody in the Assembly, if it was sitting, has anything to do with. That is a disgrace for anyone who calls themselves pro-union.

Lord McLoughlin: My Lords, this Bill has come in for sustained criticism, not least from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I have the privilege and honour of chairing. I would like to say a few words about the report that we published last week but also say that I hope that the Government are very much in listening mode. I very much welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has been at the Bar of the House for a very long time during this debate.
This Bill represents a significant departure from the line that the Government have taken since 2018. Once we had left the EU, they said that it would be for Parliament, rather than just Ministers, to decide which elements of EU law would be kept, amended or repealed. The Government have now backtracked on that, which I very much regret.
Secondly, we felt that the Bill was so lacking in detail that it was not possible to describe it as skeleton or skeletonian; it is basically just a framework for allowing Ministers to decide what happens to whole swathes of EU-retained law. The devil will be in the detail and, unfortunately, the detail does not appear in the Bill. It will be in unamendable statutory instruments later this year and possibly even up to 2026. From the Government’s point of view, all the scare stories that will arise during that period as to what changes may or may not take place will cause them a great deal of trouble.
Thirdly, Parliament is very much bypassed. The main constitutional argument for Brexit, for that utopia that was going to be reached, was that Parliament would take back control of making our laws from the EU. However, many of the changes to the EU-retained law foreshadowed in this Bill will not be for Parliament in primary legislation but for Ministers—and Ministers come and go, as we have seen. Civil servants and parliamentary counsel stay there for a very long time, able to apply the slant that they wish. There must be a way in which scrutiny takes a much stronger role in these matters.
Fourthly, talking of scrutiny, the delegated powers in this Bill are only subject to the negative procedures unless they amend an Act of Parliament, in which case affirmative procedure will apply. I am glad that the Government have been applying the affirmative procedure where statutory instruments amend Acts of Parliament, and I am glad that there is a sifting procedure enabling negative legislation to be upped to the affirmative procedure. However, there are likely to be many important and controversial changes in the pipeline that will not amend Acts of Parliament. In those cases, and only subject to sifting, will the negative procedure apply, meaning that changes will not be debated in Parliament at all.
There is talk of this Bill being extended to 2026. Obviously, a general election will fall in 2025 at the latest. The Government should think very carefully about what is already in the Bill. A lot has come forward from this debate so far which shows how very unsatisfactory this is. Everybody accepts that new procedures will now be necessary, but they should be procedures which enable Parliament to have some scrutiny. At the moment, this Bill is an “all powers, no policy” Bill. That is not acceptable and should not be acceptable to Parliament.

Lord Monks: My Lords, I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lady O’Grady, my close colleague and friend. She will continue to liven up our debates with her passion and commitment, as she has done this afternoon, and we look forward to many future contributions. We also look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, shortly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, said, the Government have produced a blank cheque for themselves to obliterate most of the 40 years of UK membership of the EU. Because of the skeletal nature of that Bill, we do not know what we are approving today except for some procedural issues which we will debate as this Bill goes through the House. A purge is going on: a purge of what the EU years did for this country. I happen to think that most of them did very well—plenty probably did not—but surely the resources that are going into this purge could be better deployed. By the way, perhaps we could be told how many civil servants have been transferred to work on this Bill, because it seems that a lot of people and resources are being thrown at a problem which is being totally exaggerated.
My focus today is on employment law, a topic that I am sure the Government have in their gun-sights—they have ever since the Maastricht treaty. In recent debates on EU employment law, the Minister has liked to downplay the EU influence on workers’ rights in the UK. He is right that many of the UK’s positive employment laws are homegrown: in fact, they were enacted by Labour Governments. But it is completely wrong to downplay the EU influence at the same time.
There are 60-odd laws on employment with an EU origin, but I will quickly pick out four areas that I want to focus and comment on. The first is TUPE, the regulations on transfer of undertakings. They protect workers’ terms and conditions on a change of employer; for example, under a privatisation. Is that really for the chop? Are the Government going to come forward on that issue?
The second is working time, which was a controversial issue in its day but is not any more. I draw particular attention to the provision on four weeks’ paid holiday. As the Minister has pointed out previously to the House, the average Brit might get more than that, but there are many who do not. By the way, before that was introduced, British workers were lucky to get three weeks’ paid holiday a year. Is that underpinning to be binned? It is not archaic or out of date.
The third is the requirement for a company to provide information and consult on changes in company strategy and key issues such as redundancy, and the related provisions for large multinational companies to have European works councils. When I left the European Trade Union Confederation in 2011, we had about 750 EWCs, with UK companies and workers playing a prominent part in 500. Are those very positive processes—European works councils, and information and consultation—to be consigned to the knacker’s yard in future?
Fourthly and finally, the EU took a particular interest in vulnerable workers: part-timers, fixed-term workers and agency workers. Are they now at risk?
The Government are very good at inventing problems, when they have enough problems of their own to deal with. Noble Lords will have a crucial part to play in combating that tendency, playing their part with vigour and commitment in getting a better outcome than this Bill will ever do.

Baroness Parminter: My Lords, for those people who voted for Brexit to take back control and for sovereignty, this Bill shows what a threadbare bargain they received: it completely sidelines Parliament and gives power into the hands of the often nameless and faceless—not bureaucrats in Europe but equally unknown to the man and woman on the Clapham omnibus—Ministers. Others have made that case far better than I can. I want to concentrate on the environmental impacts of this legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, so powerfully described as “bad government”.
As others have said, over half of all the pieces of legislation on the dashboard come down to Defra, a small department in the scheme of things. The opportunity costs are really far too high at a time when our environment here in the UK is so under threat and has been laid bare by the OEP to such a degree, particularly when you consider that environmental legislation is difficult, complex, interconnected and long-term.
Equally, we do not know what the process is. There is no guarantee that some of the very powerful protections that the EU has given us over the last 50 years will remain. We may see more people swimming in sewage on British beaches. The Minister may shake his head, but I pick up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who asked: why do we say that Europe has done so much for us? Before the EU, we were known as the dirty man of Europe when it came to beaches. We might be able to do better, but the Bill stops us getting better legislation. I will come on to that in a moment.
Our bees and pollinators may be subject to neonicotinoids, which kill them. We may get cattle-fed beef in British farming, let alone it being imported, if we get rid of the hormone regulations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, rightly said, the regulations on habitats are critical pieces of legislation which fundamentally protect our wildlife. It is no good for the Government to set brilliant targets to reverse the effects of species decline—I applaud them for doing so—if we do not protect the habitats where those species live, breed and feed. It is absolutely critical.
As I have said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said so powerfully in her excellent maiden speech, the Bill says that we cannot make legislation better. That applies to workers’ rights and environmental rights, because of the fundamental point in Clause 15 about how profitability is the underlying element. Indeed, the Minister talked about profitability in his opening remarks. So we have no guarantee that we can improve our legislation in the future. I am delighted that the Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he can give us in his summing-up some firm guarantees that we can find ways within the scope of the Bill to enhance legislation. That would be an important statement if he could make it.
Other noble Lords have made the point that businesses do not want this. I will not repeat the point, but I will add another person who has said that they do not want this legislation: Chris Skidmore, who was commissioned by this Government to look at how we will bring forward the net-zero targets. This Government desperately need to do this, and I know that the  Minister is personally very committed to it. Chris Skidmore’s review said that the Government wants consistency in regulation, yet the Bill does exactly the opposite.
I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bray of Coln. I am sure we may not always agree, but I look forward to speaking to and debating with her as she joins our Environment and Climate Change Committee.
The Bill is putting ideology above Parliament, people and our precious planet. This House must muster all its efforts to oppose it.

Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I will address matters concerning devolution and the trade and co-operation agreement. I have noted before that the number of pieces of law concerned is a rapidly moving target. There were 2,400 in the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill into the other place in September, 3,200 in the revised notes for us in January, and 3,745 as I speak today. But the explanation on the first web page of the dashboard notes that the dashboard
“is not intended to provide a comprehensive account of REUL … that sits with the competence of the Devolved Governments.”
So the dashboard will never be a complete catalogue of REUL and cannot be relied on by the devolved Governments.
The week before last, I visited the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments with the European Affairs Committee. In both places, we had detailed discussions about how the Bill affected them. It was clear that an unknown proportion of the unknown number of REUL pieces of legislation are wholly or partly devolved matters, and that at least a part of the unknown unknown pool of REUL yet to be discovered seems certain to include things that affect the devolved Governments.
For the partly devolved REUL, clearly and case by case, a careful discussion needs to take place among the Governments concerned. Can the Minister assure the House that this is taking place? Can the Minister tell us how that process works for wholly devolved REUL that was made before devolution? For wholly devolved REUL made after devolution by the devolved Governments, can the Minister describe how support to the devolved Governments is being given, to identify, analyse and, if need be, help to legislate?
In any event, like many here today, I am highly concerned about the capacity of Whitehall to deal with matters in the timescales. Following my visits to Cardiff and Holyrood, I am certain that the necessary capacity in the devolved nations is simply not there.
I finish on my home territory—and a point at least as important as the devolution one that I have just made. Clearly not all REULs are about reindeer movement, the example that the Minister wittily gave recently. I am very concerned that some of the REULs could be directly relevant to our treaty arrangements with our closest neighbours and biggest trading partners under the trade and co-operation agreement. Of especial concern is the potential to interact with the level playing field provisions, particularly those on employment and environmental standards. I feel that anything of that nature would naturally need to come  before Parliament for scrutiny and agreement, and those REULs would need separate treatment under the Bill.
In the materials accompanying the Bill, we have no document detailing how the Government are ensuring that the Bill will not lead to any breach of the trade and co-operation agreement or describing the process that all the various UK Governments will go through to ensure that. I have asked my three questions already, but here I would urge the Minister to commission such a document forthwith.

Lord Heseltine: My Lords, I salute the two excellent maiden speeches that we have heard today. I am one of the few surviving members of Margaret Thatcher’s first Government and I am amazed to find myself sitting here listening to the arguments from the Front Bench as to why her greatest achievement should be sacrificed. I remember Arthur Cockfield: he is not, perhaps, a household name today, but if you look him up in Wikipedia, you will see him described as the “father of the Common Market”, and that is right. Margaret—not a natural supporter of foreigners—saw very clearly that the mistakes of the common agricultural policy must not be made again, so she sent Arthur Cockfield to Brussels as a commissioner in order to make sure that British self-interests were dominant in the negotiation of the single market.
The single market was historically, perhaps, one of the most extraordinarily successful concepts ever developed by humankind. The implementation was difficult, against difficult economic circumstances and endless forms—small employers at night, having done all the work themselves, finding yet another form—and the flame was fanned by those two great arbiters of British self-interest, Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black. There was a growing resentment, and John Major inherited the problem. “Go to it, Tarzan”, he said to the Tory Party conference.
I was entrusted with the first serious attempt to look at the real effect of all these wealth-destroying, uncivilised, burdensome regulations. I went to it with all the enthusiasm that I hope noble Lords would expect of me. What did I do? I was entrusted with a Minister of State in every department to worm away, dig it all out. I set up public/private-sector committees for each field of activity, led by some of the most strident critics of the regulatory process. I actually published 3,000 of these regulations, so that nothing was hidden from anybody. “Let’s know what we’re all talking about in detail: here they are, great volumes of stuff”. I did something else: I wrote to every trade association and I said, “Look, I’m your man. All you’ve got to do is send me a regulation as drafted that is holding your members back and undermining the country, and send me an alternative draft”. I did not get any replies.
The issue is, of course, central to Brexit. Once the decision was taken—I was rather against it—it was important to get on and do something about the new world, because the uncertainty was bound to be burdensome and frustrating. I thought it was absolutely right that the principal Brexiteers were put in charge of the show: Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam  Fox. They, after all, presumably knew what the opportunities were, what needed to be done and what was holding us back, so they were in charge. Well, that did not last long. We had Jacob Rees-Mogg, with his Robespierrean fanaticism, and a whole new government department called Exiting the European Union. Let us not get carried away: the nameplate on the door changed. With Robespierrean fanaticism, he threw himself into the task. There was an uncharacteristic lack of history here, because of course Robespierre followed Louis XIV to the guillotine. Well, it is a more generous and kinder world that we live in today. Four Prime Ministers later, Jacob Rees-Mogg is back on the Back Benches. Dozens of Ministers have lost their jobs. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench, “Beware: here today, gone tomorrow”. That has an ominous ring for anyone who becomes mired in this Brexit saga.

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, I am so sorry—the noble Lord’s time has run out.

Noble Lords: No!

Lord Heseltine: My Lords, I am in favour of free and open discussion. I do not want the noble Lord silenced in any way: the Floor is his.
Well, here we are, another vacuum in the Brexit debate.
The essence, of course, is that, for all the empty generalisations, all the promises and all that new world, there was nothing there. This Bill demonstrates beyond peradventure that they did not know what they were doing. Six years on, they did not know what they were doing. They have now actually created a giant question mark over a whole realm of regulations that are the custodian that separates us from the law of the jungle. They are what defines a civilised society. At a time of economic stress, when we need desperately to increase the levels of investment in our economy, what have they provided? A giant question mark for anyone seeking to know whether to spend a penny piece in the United Kingdom economy. I beg noble Lords not to let this legislation leave this place unscathed.

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Heseltine. Like him, I am a fellow survivor of Margaret Thatcher’s first Administration—although I was but a humble spear carrier at the time. I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Bray who, like me, before she came here represented Ealing and Acton in another place—a constituency of beauty and contrast. As I remember it, all the beauty was in Ealing and all the contrast was in Acton.
About two hours ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, in introducing this debate, said that it was not about Brexit versus Remain: it was about the Executive versus Parliament. Control may well have been brought back, but it has been delivered to the wrong address: to Whitehall instead of Westminster.
Following what my noble friend has just said, I have left the Government five times—more than anyone else in this Chamber—but only once voluntarily. That was when Boris Johnson illegally prorogued Parliament. My concern then, and my concern now, is that, in the legitimate delivery of the referendum decision, the Government have done, and continue to do, injury to Parliament. They are repeat offenders, and we got used to this under the last two Prime Ministers, but the present one has inherited this poisoned pill and we should help him by amending it.
Last Thursday, I tuned in to a Zoom call organised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and listened to Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society. Her verdict in a nutshell was that the powers in the Bill transfer future democratic oversight of any changes to REUL away from Parliament. The Bill itself does not specify the Government’s intended policy changes in respect of any area or piece of REUL. We are being invited to give Ministers a cliff-edge power without knowing what, if any, pieces of REUL may be thrown off the cliff on sunset day.
So far, no one in this debate has explained the indecent haste proposed in the Bill. Everything else to do with Brexit has taken some time. It has taken about seven years to get this far, but we now have this mad rush to disengage from inherited legislation, contradicting, as we heard from the DPRRC, pledges by the Government that Parliament would be the agent of substantive policy change in these areas. Noble Lords do not have to read its report; they just have to look at the headings: “Bypassing Parliament” “Uncertainty” and “Lack of justification for the powers”. The Regulatory Policy Committee said that the Bill’s impact assessment is “Not fit for purpose.” It said that the Government needed to
“provide a stronger argument for why the sunsetting of REUL is necessary, as opposed to merely setting a deadline to complete the review.”
Grant Shapps told the Regulatory Policy Committee:
“Efforts are also underway to understand the potential impacts of sunsetting.”
That is an astonishing confession. Those efforts should have preceded the introduction of the Bill, not followed it.
We are all entitled to have reservations about this Bill, but I read in the Telegraph on 28 January that my noble friend Lord Hannan believes that those who do so are “demented”. He wrote:
“To overcome the bureaucratic inertia, ministers came up with the sensible idea of a sunset clause, whereby all EU rules would lapse at the end of this year unless expressly readopted. The demented response to that proposal, not just from Opposition parties but from civil servants, is revealing.”
I say to my noble friend that it is not just opposition parties and civil servants who suffer from this sad lack of short-term memory loss and an inability to articulate themselves clearly, but two Select Committees of this House, about half the Conservative Peers speaking in this debate, the CBI, the City, constitutional experts and the law. I suspect that the last person who called the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, demented was sent down for a few hours to cool off. If ever there was a Bill the second Chamber should revise, it is this one.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is a delight to have heard from my noble friend Lady O’Grady, and I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bray.
The Bill has already achieved a great deal: it has brought together the UK business sector, trade unions, environmental organisations, Justice, the consumer protection world and Chester Zoo in one almighty cry of, “No, no, no.” As we have heard from many noble Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have also not pulled their punches in their withering verdict on the Bill.
Let us get this right. At a time of unprecedented economic woe in our country, with food banks doing a roaring trade and exporters on their knees, the Government think it is a good idea automatically to revoke or sunset most retained EU law at the end of the year, law which underpins so much of the daily life of the country. It is law which underpins the common framework, the process by which the new UK internal market is being built post Brexit; consumer laws which protect consumers from scams and rogue traders—as a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, I see that the Bill as it stands could make convictions for consumer rights offences unsafe—as well as laws on food safety, product safety, animal health, intellectual property and weights and measures regulations. If I remember rightly, it was a row over weights and measures in a market square in Tunisia that led to the Arab spring. Goodness only knows what this reckless legislation will lead to.
We have no idea, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, what the final law count will be. It is 3,745 and counting. Goodness knows what it will be by the end of this debate. The retained EU law dashboard on GOV.UK talks about an “authoritative” catalogue of law up for review. It fails to say that it is a “comprehensive” catalogue, however, because new laws are being found almost all the time. The hapless Minister in charge of this sunsetting exercise in each department may well be pushed to leaving their clothes in a neat pile on a beach in Florida, John Stonehouse-style, through the sheer pressure of it all.
My opposition to the Bill is based on the harm it will do to our country and this Parliament. The TUC is, of course, worried about the potential loss of worker’s rights, including the loss of protection for pregnant women and rights to maternity and parental leave. Thirty years ago this year, the EU maternity leave directive became law against the ludicrous obstruction of the then Conservative British Government first opposing it, then watering it down, and then delaying it as much as possible. As chair of the European Parliament’s women’s rights committee at the time, I played a small part in getting it through, and millions of British women have subsequently benefited. So when Ministers say, “Your rights at work are safe with us in this Bill”, I know from experience that they have form and that we have every right to be concerned about the Bill.
Deregulation in order to compete—the famous Singapore-on-Thames—is at the heart of the Bill. Call me old-fashioned, but I will oppose the Bill on the  basis that to be a leading force in the world in 2023 we need to be the best: the best in standards and rights for the British people, and the best for our accountability to our Parliament.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the Bill we are debating today surely represents the triumph of ideology over common sense and pragmatism. A huge number of existing laws are to be scrapped at the end of this year not because they are bad laws or inadequate laws, but simply because they are laws based on decisions taken collectively by EU institutions of which we were a full and active part when they were adopted. They are to be scrapped irrespective of whether by that date they have been replaced by a new statute or not.
To look first at the quantum of laws to be scrapped in this way, even the Government do not know the exact number. It is somewhere in the region of 3,000 to 4,000, and the figure is augmented by new discoveries in the National Archives which means it keeps going up. To initiate a vast scrappage scheme without knowing what you are scrapping is surely unprecedented. Whatever the final figure turns out to be, the replacement of this massive body of law will absorb the Civil Service and Parliament to the exclusion of other, perhaps higher, legislative priorities. Is that a sensible choice of priorities? If an oversight is discovered later this year or after the guillotine comes down at the end of it, there will be a void in our statute book on a matter that could be of great significance and importance for people’s everyday lives.
Secondly, look at the replacement process proposed in the Bill. This represents a massive extension of executive power, with Parliament having little or no say given the inadequacies of parliamentary oversight in the statutory instrument process. You might think it is an odd interpretation of taking back control. There will be little or no time to conduct the wide consultancy processes which ought to precede legislating on complex or sensitive matters.
Add to those drawbacks a third category: the implications for devolution and the relationships with the devolved Assemblies. Many of the laws to be scrapped cover matters that have been devolved to Scotland and Wales. What say will they have in the decision to scrap one of their laws? They will have none, so those devolution complications will necessarily take a good deal of sorting out.
Fourthly, what will be the implications for our relationship with the EU if the replacement legislation diverges too sharply from that of the EU on matters that fall within the ambit of the trade and co-operation agreement? That agreement has provisions for what is known as a level playing field, and it has provisions for the other side to compensate itself for any failure to maintain that, possibly leading to worsening of the already suboptimal conditions for trade between us in goods and services for what remains our biggest overseas market.
Of the four major categories of defects in the Bill I have identified, on not one are the Government in a position to provide clarity or reassurance at this point in time. They really are offering an irrevocable leap in the dark with this overhasty legislation. What will be  the consequences for investment, so necessary if we are to achieve the growth the Government are promising? Sharply negative if the view of the director-general of the CBI is anything to go by.
The conclusion surely is that this Bill in its present form, with its detailed provisions and cut-off deadlines, requires meticulous scrutiny and, very probably, considerable amendment. No one, so far as I can see—and no one who has spoken—is arguing that no retained EU law should be replaced. This is simply not the best way to do it. Would not a sectoral approach be better than this sledgehammer method? Would not a longer timetable make sense? If we legislate in this way in haste, repentance will be painful and durable for an economy not currently in particularly robust condition.

Baroness Bray of Coln: My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for the wonderfully warm welcome they have given me since I arrived here just a few weeks ago. It has meant a great deal to me. My special thanks must go to my mentor, my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, and to my two supporters, my noble friends Lady Finn and Lord Maude of Horsham, for whom I worked as his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Minister for the Cabinet Office and responsible for the coalition Government’s world-leading efficiency reforms.
I also offer huge thanks to all the staff here, who have been so helpful in every way. I single out the doorkeepers, who have always been ready to redirect me as I try to find my way around the building—I still have not been entirely successful—and the digital services team, who continue to show the patience of Job as I come seeking help with my iPhone and iPad, yet again.
My journey to this place really started when I was around 12 years old. My father loved politics and was always keen to discuss the latest issues, especially over Sunday lunch. My mother and older sister were not at all interested, so he settled on me to show an interest. He loved picking a subject to debate and then putting me on one side and himself on the other. I did my best. The next Sunday, he would announce that we were going to do the same subject again but we were going to swap sides. Well, I certainly learned that there are at least two sides to every issue, and I began to rather enjoy it all.
After leaving St Andrews University, I went on to train as a radio journalist, working first for British Forces Broadcasting in Gibraltar and then LBC Radio in London. From there I was asked to join Conservative Central Office to head up the broadcasting unit in the press office. I met so many talented and interesting politicians while doing that, quite a few of whom I have met all over again here.
I later became leader of the Conservative group, having been elected in 2000 to one of the first tranches of the London Assembly at the GLA for the seat in which I live, London West Central. This was my first experience of proper, elected political life. I was learning it at the feet of possibly London’s most prominent and canny politician at the time—Ken Livingstone, London’s  first elected mayor. As I said, I later became leader of the Conservative group. It was a great honour and also quite a challenge, but I like to think that the nine of us were quite an effective force at City Hall.
I stood down from the GLA before the 2008 London election because, by then, I had been adopted as the parliamentary candidate for the newly created constituency of Ealing Central and Acton. It was, I was told, the most critical marginal seat in the country, but Labour-leaning; so no pressure then. I won the seat in 2010, then Labour won it back off me in 2015—but what a five-year term it was. I loved every minute of it. The constituency is a fascinating mix: some communities are wealthy, some are a lot poorer, many different languages are spoken and it is wonderfully diverse. It was a great education for me as I sought to help my constituents on a huge variety of issues.
And now, I am honoured to be standing here in this place. As to the debate in which we are participating, I am in danger of being in a bit of a minority, but I fully support what the Government are aiming to achieve with this Bill—which is, essentially, to cut back on unnecessary rules and regulations so that we can more easily and successfully grow and flourish as a nation. I applaud the ambition of cutting red tape where it is not needed, to ensure that businesses can spend more time transforming and growing their business rather than filling out forms.
I know some may worry that this Bill may weaken the laws that protect our environment but, at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Minister made clear that the Government will
“use the powers in the Bill to ensure that our environmental law is functioning and able to drive improved environmental outcomes, with the UK continuing to be a world leader in environmental protection.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/22; col. 186.]
Let us also focus on some of the additional benefits that our renewed freedom outside the EU has already brought us. For instance, it allowed us to develop and roll out our highly effective Covid vaccination programme at critical speed, long before the EU had got its act together. I appreciate that the process of disentangling our laws will not always be easy, but it would be extraordinary, surely, if, after all we went through with the referendum, ultimately choosing to leave the EU, we then decided that we were quite happy continuing to live under EU law after all. I am confident that we can successfully take control of our legal affairs once again as an independent nation state.

Baroness Lea of Lymm: First, I want to say how delighted I am to follow the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Bray. I very much congratulate her and, given her illustrious career, I am sure she has much to contribute to this House. I look forward to being her colleague for many years to come—although I am not sure whether that is a threat or a promise.
Moreover, I wholly concur with my noble friend’s comments on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. We left the EU over three years ago and the transition period ended over two years ago. It is surely right that British authorities should be able to decide which rules they wish to retain, scrap or change  for the benefit of the country. I do note the concerns over parliamentary scrutiny that have been expressed here this afternoon.
The Government’s policy paper The Benefits of Brexit, issued in January 2022, discussed the potential new freedoms. It said:
“We now have the opportunity to set ourselves apart and deliver bespoke UK-orientated regulation that is primarily focused on delivering growth, innovation and competition while minimising burdens on business.”
I pretty well agree with that. The Chancellor’s Edinburgh reforms relating to financial services, part enabled by Brexit, and the Financial Services and Markets Bill, are also encouraging developments.
To put the Bill in a wider context, quite simply, we now have freedoms that we did not have in the EU, and not just regulatory freedoms. Trade is clearly, potentially, a significant winner. The free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand are our first “from scratch” FTAs in over 50 years; I remember 50 years ago. And membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—try saying that when you cannot speak—currently being negotiated, should deliver notable benefits.
If I may be allowed to digress into broader economic issues, there are, of course, many who voice concerns over the economic impact of Brexit. It is reasonable to suggest that the introduction of various trade restrictions following Brexit has dampened trade; but the trade data are not easy to interpret—and my goodness me, have I spent my life doing that. The extended lockdowns, supply chain disruptions and the global recession have had a major impact on trade, and data collection changes by HMRC have muddied the waters even further. But the latest data from the ONS—the Office for National Statistics—show that goods trade picked up very strongly in 2022, despite Brexit, after weakness in 2020 and 2021.
Concerning the economy more generally, I remember well the Treasury and the Bank of England uttering dire warnings about Brexit’s impact back in 2016; and the IMF and OECD chimed in. Suffice to say, “Project Fear” did not materialise, but identifying Brexit’s economic impact now is fraught with difficulties, not least because of the disruptive lockdowns and the sharp increases in energy prices, exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Any assessments, therefore, must be treated with the greatest caution. Let us note that the OBR’s much-quoted 4% negative impact on productivity is basically an assumption based on external forecasts. I suggest that the analysis of data outturns is potentially a more constructive way forward. OECD data show that the UK and Germany have grown at very similar rates since 2016: faster than Italy, a bit slower than France. That does not suggest a major Brexit hit.
In the meantime, I look forward to Brexit’s potential benefits, including those flowing from the retained EU law Bill—that is why I support it—and, indeed, the major savings on our contributions to the EU.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I declare my environmental interests that are in the register.
In my 25 years in your Lordships’ House, I do not think I have ever heard a Bill so roundly condemned from all quarters. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who, although he supported Brexit, is clear, as was his committee, that the Bill itself is unsupportable.
Lots of other noble Lords have said that the Bill takes powers from Parliament and hands them to the Executive, that it is a super-framework Bill or that it is super-skeletal, but I have a simple term for it: it is a pig in a poke. We are buying something that we do not know what it is going to be when we vote it through.
It is basically a deregulatory measure. The Clause 15 measures have been paraphrased as, “Ministers can do anything provided it doesn’t increase regulatory burden”, which is defined as
“a financial cost; … an administrative inconvenience; … an obstacle to trade or innovation; … an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability”.
That is pretty clear and no-bones. It is about deregulation, despite the fact that regulation is often most simple and efficient way of achieving environmental outcomes.
I shall focus on the environmental issues in the Bill. Of the 3,700 pieces of EU retained law—as is currently the case; we have seen the dashboard wobble about quite a bit regarding the number of pieces of legislation that is estimated, so I do not think 3,700 is the last word—1,781 are in Defra’s court, four times more than any other department. This is the department that has already been ticked off twice in the last four months by its new environmental regulator, the Office for Environmental Protection, for not meeting the targets and deadlines that Defra itself set. So I do not really have a lot of confidence that Defra is going to be able to cope with reaching decisions about four times more pieces of EU retained legislation than any other department.
I am a very sad human being and I have read the list of 1,781 pieces of Defra legislation. I would agree with the Minister, were he to say this, that some are indeed minor, some have lost their relevance as a result of us leaving the EU, and some of them are a bit tech-y. I am sure the Minister will agree with me on that. For example, I enjoyed reading the one on
“additional guarantees regarding salmonella for consignments to Finland and Sweden of laying hens”.
That looked like a showstopper to me. However, some pieces of retained EU legislation in that list are substantial, long-standing and deeply woven into the fabric of environmental protection in this country at national and local level, and are accepted by many people as vital, operational and well constructed.
I know that the habitats regulations are a bogeyman for deregulators, but the one thing that we have to remember is that they are effective because we invented them. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, talked about safeguarding British self-interest—although I disassociate myself from Mrs Thatcher in that. We showed British self-interest in negotiating and leading the EU into adopting a highly effective protection system for biodiversity of species and the habitats on which they depend. We were a mover and a shaker in the EU; this was not stuff that was done to us.
I thank the Minister for meeting us last week over the Bill. When pressed, he will tell us that alternatives to the habitats regulations have already been devised in the Environment Bill and, now, in the levelling-up Bill, but that has not been made clear while we have debated these Bills. Not once during the passage of the Environment Bill was it stated that its priorities were—

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: Will the noble Baroness conclude her remarks?

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I will finish in two seconds. Not once during the passage of the Environment Bill was it stated that its provisions were intended to replace the habitats regulations. This is no sort of process, where alternatives are inserted piecemeal rather than laid out to show how they match up to what is being done away with.
The Bill is cosmetically and disastrously aimed at getting rid of EU legislation before the next election at any cost.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: The noble Baroness has exceeded the speaking limit by some margin. It is time for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I recommend that your Lordships’ House not amend the Bill but not pass it.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I congratulate our two new noble Baronesses on their excellent speeches. I think they will both be an incredible asset to their parties. I will welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, into the Opposition over here when the Tory Government fall.
Some 2,000 years ago, the Roman philosopher Cicero said, “The closer the collapse of an empire, the crazier its laws”. That is what we have here. There are families who are starving, people who are freezing in their homes and workers rightfully striking on the streets, but we are in here debating this dross. I do not know how the Government can face us when they send us legislation like this. Just as the Public Order Bill is an attack on democracy in the streets, this Bill is an attack on democracy here within Parliament. Rather than taking back control, the Government are seeking to take away Parliament’s sovereign power of voting for or against laws and to hand that power over to a chaotic Executive of right-wing Ministers and their civil servants. We have reached the slash-and-burn stage of Brexit cultism, which will certainly throw this country into a state of legal uncertainty.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided a comparatively sensible way for the Government to transition out of the EU with a functioning body of law, with the ability to identify opportunities outside the EU and pass new laws accordingly. This is not the same by any means. We do not have a list of laws that are going to be deleted by the Bill; it gives carte blanche to delete all, and it is going to be an absolute mess. It will be at the discretion of Ministers, who will  choose to delete—or not—some parts of EU law without further scrutiny, either parliamentary scrutiny or scrutiny by the electorate.
The electorate have not voted for this Bill. It is not in the Tory party manifesto. Voters have never been asked about the approach that the Government want to take to retained EU law. It is not part of the oven-ready Brexit that we were promised, which was cooked up last year with a poison pill. It will mean that important decisions on which laws are retained will have been made by the end of this year before the general election, and then some other political party will have to pick up the mess and try to cope with the disaster.
The Bill gives the legal mechanisms but no political mechanisms. Only Ministers will choose the fate of 4,000 pieces of legislation. It seems crazy that we are handing that power to Ministers. We did not trust them before this came and we certainly will not trust them afterwards.
Our future relationship with the EU is important. There is a growing recognition that leaving the European Union has not delivered the benefits that we were promised. The Bill is proof that even this Government cannot find any benefits to boast about. There will soon be a public debate about our relationship with the European Union, and the Green Party has decided that the relationship should be as close as possible until the political circumstances are right for us to rejoin. I say that as someone who voted for Brexit. What I have seen is destruction by this Government, and they are not delivering on all their promises.
My feeling is that the only sensible thing now is to cut our losses and rejoin the EU, and I think many others, some inside this building but many outside, will agree with me.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and my noble friend Lady Bray. They made excellent maiden speeches, and I am sure they will bring great expertise and enhance our proceedings in the future.
In 2018, we passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which made it absolutely clear that we were going to review all the EU legislation. You would have thought that that would have been a signal to the civil servants of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, to start sorting out what this actually meant and how much EU legislation they had in their departments. In fact, as far as I can make out, almost nothing happened at all. They thought, “Well, we needn’t bother about this. It will never happen and, anyway, most of us voted remain and we would quite like to rejoin the EU anyway.”
It is an absolute disaster that we are now having to impose sunset clauses in this Bill which has galvanised the departments to produce the EU retained law that they have. They are even sorting out in archives and so forth to bring this stuff out. The briefing that we got said that there were 2,000 bits of EU retained law. That then went up to 3,300; now we have heard today that it is 3,700. Most people think it is going to top out at 4,000. I only hope they are right, as it seems to me that there is no limit to the amount that this number might grow.
When we come to review it, it seems to me that there are a number of options in front of the Government. We could retain the laws from the EU and, presumably, it would be pretty uncontroversial with most of your Lordships in this House if we retained the law intact and unamended.
We could repeal some of the law. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said last week, some of the bits of EU law involve—and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made light of this—movement of reindeer between Denmark and Sweden. That is of no concern to this country whatever. What we need to know is how many more bits of legislation there are which are as irrelevant as reindeer in Denmark. I would ask my noble friend to give us the percentage. But I am afraid that, as he does not even seem to know the number of bits of EU law there are, the chances of him knowing the percentage that are completely irrelevant to this country probably are not very great.
Other bits that we would want to repeal are ones where EU provision is actually less than what we provide already in this country in our legislation. Presumably, that would be relatively non-controversial if it could be proved that we make greater provision for workers’ rights or whatever than under the EU law. If we follow the suggestion from my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts to somehow filter this stuff, then it would be quite possible to say that it could go through under a statutory instrument because it would be basically non-controversial.
We then come on to the more difficult areas where we are revising legislation to bring it up to date. They are technical changes. As we well know, technical changes can be a number of different things. They can be very dramatic changes or just genuinely technical, and that is why once again I support my noble friend’s suggestion. We have to filter out genuinely technical changes from those that are not.
What is very bad news about this legislation that we have in front of us is that it enables Ministers to completely change legislation altogether, and that is something that we did not vote for in the referendum. When we wanted to get our powers back, we certainly did not say, “We will bring undemocratic edicts from Europe and enhance the power of Ministers and increase the powers of the Executive.” That is not what we are here for and not what we should be voting for.

Lord Hendy: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady on their excellent maiden speeches.
As a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I of course agree with its report on the Bill and that of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Both reports reflect the statement of principles in their 2021 reports, Democracy Denied? and Government by Diktat.
I want to focus on one aspect of the Bill: the sunset clause which facilitates the removal of our employment rights without parliamentary scrutiny, as there will be no draft legislation to scrutinise. Twice in recent weeks, my noble friend Lord Woodley has asked whether the Minister will retain the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. The Minister  declined to say. If he sits tight and does nothing, that important suite of rights will evaporate on New Year’s Day and the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, will not be able to oppose, amend or even debate it.
The Minster claimed on 23 January that:
“UK employment rights do not depend on EU law.”—[Official Report, 23/1/23; col. 3.]
He repeated the claim on 1 February. The truth is that some do not but most do. My noble friends Lady O’Grady, Lady Crawley and Lord Monks have mentioned some. I will mention some others. The right to a safe place of work, system of work, safe equipment and competent colleagues is a homegrown common law right originating in 1837 and articulated in the case of Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English in 1938.
The Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations were made under our domestic Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Their provenance was one of the recommendations of the Piper Alpha disaster inquiry. However, the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations, which make similar provisions about safety representatives and safety committees where no union is recognised were made under the European Communities Act to implement EU law. In fact, most employment rights and health and safety are EU law.
I will give some examples to illustrate the scale of this. We are talking about regulations on: management of health and safety, workplace health and safety, work equipment, PPE, manual handling, display screen equipment, carcinogens, biological agents, construction, safety signs, pregnant women, drilling, mining, chemical agents, dangerous substances, explosive atmospheres, fishing vessels, ionising radiation, lifts, machinery, biocidal products, major hazards, transport, working time, work at height, temporary and mobile worksites, explosive atmospheres, young persons, physical agents, noise, vibration, and offshore installation safety cases.
Clause 1(4)(a) of this Bill will sweep away regulations made under the European Communities Act. But the regulations I have mentioned will survive because they are made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The fate of regulations made under both Acts such as the Control of Asbestos Regulations is not clear. The answer, however, is academic. All these statutory instruments will be caught by Clause 1(4)(b) since they were made to implement EU law, whatever their statutory foundation.
Consequently, all the Minister has to do is to sit on his hands and all these vital protections hitherto enjoyed by our 30 million workers will disappear in a puff of smoke without parliamentary scrutiny. That is unacceptable and also appears to be a flouting of the obligations we undertook to maintain and implement health and safety laws under Articles 386 to 388 and 399 of the trade and co-operation agreement.

Baroness Humphreys: My Lords, I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a very new member, for its report on this Bill and to Senedd Research for its informative legislative consent memoranda and other documents.
As the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee highlights, in 2018 the European Union (Withdrawal) Act promised that Parliament and the devolved legislatures would be able to decide which elements of some 3,000 or 4,000 pieces of retained EU law to keep, amend or repeal once the UK had left the EU. This retained EU law Bill cuts across that pledge and makes a mockery of the supposed argument for Brexit that the UK Parliament would be supreme and would be responsible for making our laws once we had left the EU.
The Bill, however, gives unfettered authority to Ministers through secondary legislation, bypassing both the UK Parliament and the Senedd in Wales. Such a blatant attack on the powers of the UK Parliament might be unusual but in Wales we have become rather used to this type of treatment, especially since 2019. Giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee in November, the Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, reflecting on the relationship between the two Governments and the increasing problems around the Sewel convention, said:
“We had engaged relationships with Conservative Governments from 2010 to 2019. We did not agree on many things, of course, but we were always around the table together talking. The exception in this … rule is the period from 2019 to earlier this year.”
The retained EU law Bill is a child of the Brexit Government who came to power in 2019. Since then, emboldened by their majority in the other place and fuelled by a unionism sometimes described as “aggressive”, they have ridden roughshod over the Sewel convention, they have usurped the powers of the Senedd and, in the Bill, they will also blatantly usurp the powers of the UK Parliament.
The Delegated Powers Committee’s report concludes:
“We have recommended that, of the six most important provisions containing delegated powers in this Bill, five should be removed from the Bill altogether. The shortcomings of this hyper-skeletal Bill justify our approach.”
The Welsh Government go further: I believe they have now recommended that the Senedd withholds consent for the Bill. The Welsh Counsel General and the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture have published a joint letter in the Financial Times, calling for the Bill to be withdrawn. The devolved Administrations are preparing lists, reviewing thousands of pieces of retained EU law and seeking the Government’s help in ascertaining whether some laws are devolved or reserved, all in what appears to be a state of uncertainty, confusion and chaos.
The Bill allows an extension, to 2026, for the UK Ministers to complete their work, but Ministers in the devolved Administrations are restricted to the 2023 deadline. Welsh Ministers have requested an amendment to address this anomaly, but we still await a response. Will the Minister explain why there has been no response, address the anomaly and assure me that an amendment will be tabled by the Government? If he cannot do the latter, I will happily do so.

Lord Dobbs: My Lords, this afternoon, we have had the glorious sight of many noble angels dancing on the head of a pin, effervescing with enthusiasm for the virtues of parliamentary oversight. Of course, they are absolutely right, but I just wonder where this particular angelic host was hiding during the previous 40-odd years, when rule was piled upon regulation and then dropped from the commanding heights of Brussels on to this so-called sovereign Parliament. There was not much debate then, or much protest from the usual suspects. There were not many Tarzans swinging through the jungle, if I may put it that way. You do not get back in your car, with your windscreen smothered in almost 50 years of parking tickets, and then decide that you can drive away while peeling them off one by one—although some noble Lords have come up with an answer: they want to drive away in reverse gear. That is what a good deal of the criticism is really about: going back to the future and reliving the glorious past, with all its myths, fantasies and metric martyrs.
It is suggested that the Bill is a cut-and-paste exercise. Thank goodness for that, because, while we use paste, the EU uses superglue. We can move things around, but it cannot: once you are in, you are stuck. We have a dashboard. We have this debate, we will have a stringent Committee—I hope it will be prosperous—and future Governments will be able to have their way, too. So, yes, let us defend the rights of Parliament against the Executive, but let us not forget that the Bill has already passed through our elected House of Commons. Yet we have heard threats from Opposition Benches today that they intend to tear the Bill apart—that is unacceptable, irresponsible and utterly undemocratic.
Sadly, politics is not the pursuit of perfection; it is usually a choice between the unappetising and the totally inedible. What is inedible, and impossible to stomach, is that knot of prejudice that simply refuses to accept Brexit. I will not point a finger at anyone in this House, although I suspect that some volunteers may like to step forward, but I will point a finger at Guy Verhofstadt—Mr Europe—who, the other day, offered the conclusion that Putin invaded Ukraine because of Brexit. Perhaps his foie gras had gone off or something. There was me thinking that independent post-Brexit Britain had pulled Europe towards its senses on Ukraine and into action, just as we did with Covid vaccines. Thank goodness we were able to make those decisions with some speed then. Mr Verhofstadt’s words are truly appalling.
Other words I find more compelling are those of Jonathan Reynolds, the Labour spokesman on the Bill in the other place. I was glad to hear them echoed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. During the Commons Second Reading, Mr Reynolds said that this Bill
“is not about Brexit—Brexit has happened; it is a fact.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/22; col. 191.]
So we must stop pretending that the European parliamentary system was so much more democratic and its laws so much better considered. Brexit is a fact—a democratic fact—and it is our duty to get on with it.

Lord Verdirame: My Lords, I am afraid I agree with a lot of the criticisms and concerns that have been expressed by many noble Lords, although not the noble Lord who just preceded me. I regret to be in this position because I support the idea that there should be a review of retained EU law, and I also support the principle that retained EU law should be fully assimilated as UK law. Clauses 4 to 6 are not perfect, but they are not the main problem that the Bill presents.
As explained by a number of noble Lords, the two main concerns are the Bill’s impact on legal certainty and its impact on the integrity of the legislative process. We have all read about the uproar of concern from businesses and professional and social organisations about legal certainty in particular. I do not think that behind this reaction there is a concerted attempt to create a permanent shrine for EU law within our legal system. The need for legal clarity is prompting these concerns, and I hope that, in Committee, we will be able to consider ways in which the operation of the sunset clauses in particular can be improved to satisfy this basic requirement.
It is in the Government’s interest to proceed in a clearer and more systematic way. According to the calculations of the Law Society, which I believe are based on the latest available figures, it would be necessary to review 13 pieces of legislation per working day from today until 31 December. Even if this were just a tidying-up exercise—I do not think it is or that it is being characterised as such; otherwise, it would not offer all these opportunities—it would be a huge task. It is precisely because I agree with the Government that this work could present opportunities that I think it is important to get it right, even if it takes a bit longer.
There are other aspects of the Bill that affect legal certainty that I look forward to considering more fully in Committee. For example, I am a bit perplexed by the system of references by law courts, tribunals and law officers envisaged in Clause 7. In the Bill, of all places, I did not expect to find any EU law import; I would have thought it preferable to leave the process of assimilation of EU law into UK law to the forces of the common law under clear legislative guidance—but without a procedural mechanism that is convoluted and risks generating delay and uncertainty.
Briefly, on the integrity of the legislative process, I too share many of the concerns that have been expressed about the power clauses, and in particular Clause 15. The Government and a number of speakers have a point when they say that the legislation with which we are dealing came into our legal system via the old European Communities Act 1972 and was subject to very little or no scrutiny—although I hear different views on that. It seems to me that the key point is that the European Communities Act did not exist in a vacuum; it was predicated on the delegation of legislative competence to international institutions which had their own legislative processes, governed by treaties to which we had acceded. I was never a fan of that legislative process—I was certainly not misty-eyed about it—but, even so, I cannot agree with the proposition that the delegation of legislative power under the European Communities Act can be compared with  the delegation proposed under Clause 15 in particular. For this reason, and on this point, I too would very much welcome constructive and sensible proposals for improving the Bill.

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, Monsieur Barnier recently warned Britain not to tear up EU laws—well, he would, wouldn’t he? This should come as no surprise. For all its trumpeted advantages, the EU is performing worse than Britain. Whatever way you look at it, Britain is doing better. As Britain escapes the cloying and destructive stranglehold of EU regulations and red tape, we will leave the EU trailing even further behind. It is no wonder that Monsieur Barnier is nervous.
Many claim that Britain has suffered economically from leaving the European Union. That is nonsense, driven by those who wish for us to rejoin the European Union. Last year, Britain’s GDP grew faster than those of Germany, France and Italy. Our economy has grown by 5.7% since 2016—the same as that of Germany, the financial powerhouse of the EU. Yet, in 2022, real wages fell further in Germany than they did in the UK. While food prices are up by 19.9% in Britain, they have risen by 21.1% in the eurozone and 24.1% across the whole of Europe.
However badly the British economy might be faring in these challenging times, the European Union is doing worse. That is in relation not only to economics; our Covid vaccine development, procurement and rollout is a good example of what can be achieved free from EU restrictions. It was such a success that the EU tried to keep it for itself and to block shipments to Britain. By March 2021, Britain had vaccinated 40% of its population, while the EU had vaccinated only 12% to 14%. Just think how much more the rest of our life sciences sector and other industries can achieve when they are fully freed from the EU’s shackles.
We must support the Bill; it will help to remove the remaining EU bureaucracy from our statute book that continues to impede our economy and society. Some noble Lords may complain, as indeed they have today, that too much discretion is being given to Ministers, but we should remember that the retained EU laws only exist because edict after edict was imposed on the UK without this country being able to alter so much as a comma. Noble Lords have far more scrutiny now, and under the Bill, than they ever did when the legislation was created.

Lord Fox: Nonsense.

Lord Howard of Rising: It is not nonsense; it is true.
Above all, we should celebrate that our country is a sovereign nation and be grateful that we are not subject to the 25,163 new EU laws created since we left. I urge noble Lords to support the Bill, which recognises that our country is now governed from Westminster and not by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.

Lord Trees: My Lords, the Bill sets out considerable detail on the legalistic process of dealing with retained EU law, which noble, and noble and  learned, Lords are rightly examining, and will continue to examine, in great detail. But the Bill says absolutely nothing about specific items of law.
I will focus on the areas within the remit of Defra and get down to some specifics. As we have heard, the department has by far the biggest burden of legislation to consider from the current dashboard of over 1,700 pieces of legislation, encompassing animal health and welfare and the environment, matters of great concern to the UK public and critical for trade. While the Bill aims to retain, amend or revoke retained EU law, according to that which is “right for the UK”—which is perfectly fair and reasonable—there is as yet little indication of which laws are going to be judged “right for the UK”.
In the light of the absence of specifics in the Bill, my points will be a series of questions; while the Minister may not be able to answer them today, I hope he will respond to them by letter. It is difficult, from the current dashboard, to determine how many pieces of legislation have been reviewed by Defra and may be accepted, for example, as unchanged. On Defra’s legislative burden, can the Minister tell us where it currently stands on assessing the 1,781 REULs? What additional resources has Defra been given to cover this vast workload? I also note that an extension of the sunset beyond 2023 is possible for England, but not for the devolved Administrations. Yet so many of the relevant laws are devolved competencies, so how will His Majesty’s Government assist the devolved nations in dealing with this in the very limited time available?
The UK has played an important role in developing the 44 retained animal welfare laws, and, given our pride in the high standards we have in the UK, can we assume that most, if not all, of these will be accepted into UK law unchanged? Who will decide whether to accept, amend or revoke the many hundreds of laws and regulations before they are presented to Parliament as SIs, at which point of course we will have very limited opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny? Transparency here is essential for the credibility of the process, so can the Minster tell us who will decide, how they will decide, and when they will decide?
A particular concern relates to the REACH regulations, which require animal testing for the safety of chemicals and so have animal welfare implications. Will there be mutual recognition of testing, either in the UK or the EU, so as to avoid the replication of animal testing?
On food safety, has the Food Standards Agency been given the resources to cope with the huge number of legislative adjustments that will be required concerning food safety and quality?
Finally, on trade, the requirement for export health certificates to our biggest single export market for animals and animal products has ballooned from about 20,000 a year to over 200,000 a year. Will legislative changes consequential to the Bill add to this regulatory burden or reduce it? If they will reduce it—how?
I have asked a few questions, but they are only a fraction of the thousands of questions that the Bill raises.

Lord Udny-Lister: My Lords, although some would still care to deny it, it is a fact that no single electoral option has received more votes in UK history than that to leave the European Union. Indeed, the majority of the 17.4 million voters who turned out on that historic day to cast their votes to leave the EU did so on the simple premise that we in this place would take back control of our laws and untangle the UK from nearly 50 years of top-down EU bureaucracy. Today, through Second Reading of this Bill, the Government have shown that they will live up to the mandate and, in so doing, they have my full support.
Throughout my participation in other Brexit-related debates and listening to some of the contributions made by noble Lords, I have been rather confounded, as regretfully there appears to be an assumption by some that the only origin of standards and protections is the European Union and the European Union alone. I put it to your Lordships’ House that this view is complete baloney. It neglects the fact that for centuries this island nation has been the global benchmark and upholder of high standards, robust regulations and the origins of many legal and financial mechanisms which ensure fairness, competitiveness and probity in our global systems to this day.
Perhaps, in his summary, the Minister might reassure the House of this and of the fact that this country has a proud track record of creating sound regulation where required and, in some cases, more robust standards than even those of the EU. It would also be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the Civil Service in the UK is well up to the job and more than capable of writing regulations, because there has been a suggestion today that it is not capable of delivering that in the time available, which seems rather strange from so many people here.
I support this Bill, as it presents government with an unparalleled opportunity to cut red tape where it is not needed and allow our businesses the freedom to get on with innovation and transformation. With SMEs accounting for around 60% of UK employment, the more freedom we give them, the better and the stronger our economy will be in the long term. I hope that Ministers will seize this opportunity and remove as many of these regulations as possible.
The constitutional significance of this Bill cannot be downplayed, for through the ending of the special status of retained EU law, we are returning sovereignty to this Parliament and restoring the primacy to Acts of Parliament. Most importantly, we are putting the British back in control of the laws of the land and for that reason the Bill has my support.

Rwanda: Memorandum of Understanding
 - Question for Short Debate

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: To ask His Majesty’s Government why they used a Memorandum of Understanding rather than a treaty as the vehicle for the agreement with Rwanda on the transfer of asylum seekers. Relevant document: 7th Report from the International Agreements Committee

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, I am delighted, after four months, to see the International Agreements Committee’s report on Rwanda debated here; albeit, I have to say, because of my success in a ballot rather than because of its importance. Yet this issue is important to the asylum seekers involved but also for the future of our parliamentary role in scrutinising the action of Ministers.
Thanks to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, treaties must be laid before Parliament for 21 days, where they can be debated, evaluated and, in the case of the Commons, their ratification endorsed or delayed. That is a powerful stay over the ability of government to make international treaties without parliamentary consent.
Today, we will hear from members of the International Agreements Committee who wrote this report: the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Lansley and Lord Razzall, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, together with one of our newer members, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. On behalf of this House, they and other members of the committee examine every treaty and report on it. However, with the Rwanda accord, we see an issue with enormous human rights and rule of law implications, potentially affecting the lives of thousands, yet the agreement was signed not as a treaty but as a memorandum of understanding. This allowed the Government to bypass Parliament; indeed, it came into force on signature without any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
Two weeks ago, on 12 January, two Lords committee reports on the usurping of parliamentary power by Ministers were debated in this Chamber. It was stated:
“The abuse of delegated power is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy.”—[Official Report, 12/1/23; col. 1536.]
The first report, Government by Diktat, was in the committee’s words,
“a stark warning—that the balance of power between Parliament and Government has ... been shifting away from Parliament”.
The second, Democracy Denied?, was an alert
“to a potentially serious threat to a cornerstone of our constitution—effective parliamentary scrutiny of legislation”,
it being a
“matter of urgency that Parliament should … consider how the balance of power can be re-set”.
On Rwanda, the avoidance of the CRaG Act treaty scrutiny by means of an MoU makes one conclude that that is exactly why that vehicle was chosen. I will not go into the rights or wrongs of the intention within the MoU—the offshoring of asylum claims—because its legality is being tested in the high courts, while its morality is for other fora. However, we noted in the report that, since this was agreed by a non-binding MoU, its so-called safeguards are not legally enforceable, meaning that neither the individuals concerned nor the UK can ensure that asylum applicants’ rights are protected once they arrive in Rwanda.
Our committee concluded that the Government should not have signed a deal with Rwanda merely as a political statement without parliamentary scrutiny. It has significant consequences for individuals and their rights; it involves public expenditure; and it is a  major new policy, with far-reaching implications. Surely something of this importance is the business of Parliament and not just of Ministers.
It is unacceptable that a Government should use prerogative powers to agree important arrangements with serious human rights implications without scrutiny by Parliament. Rather, such agreements should be signed as legally enforceable treaties or, if for any reason that is not possible, the Government should deposit MoUs for parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as a treaty, allowing 21 days before implementation.
Indeed, major constitutional changes to our handling of refugees is even better done by legislation, which, we read in the Times, the Government are now planning. Regardless of whether any of us agree with that policy, being described elsewhere as draconian and possibly removing rights of appeal, should Parliament agree, then that is the law. However, I had concerns when I read in yesterday’s Sunday Times that if a court does something that the Prime Minister does not like, he will pull us out of the European Convention on Human Rights rather than accept a judge’s ruling. The Government seem to think they can be above the law.
Today’s debate is about why the Government chose to bypass Parliament in the method by which they chose to implement a new policy. We invited the Government to engage constructively about how to handle non-treaty arrangements of such importance. Unfortunately, we were given no sensible answer and no debate in your Lordships’ House to put our case in public. Our ballot system for debate is what brought us here today and I am grateful that that at least existed and, for once, I was lucky in the ballot. I hope, however, that today we will get a more constructive answer from the Minister to this serious question: why did the Government use a MoU rather than a treaty for the Rwanda agreement?

Lord Lansley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on securing this debate and, indeed, on her persistence in doing so. I think the committee, of which I was then a member, was absolutely right to conduct an inquiry and to challenge, as we did, the Government’s decision to use a memorandum of understanding as the basis for this arrangement with Rwanda. By deliberately making the arrangement—of course it is not an agreement, according to the Government—not binding in international law, the Government deliberately put it outside the scrutiny of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. So there is a very simple principle at stake in this debate: should significant international agreements be scrutinised by Parliament?
This agreement is in fact both significant and controversial. The cost is high. The risk of non-delivery is also high. There was insufficient evidence of potential effectiveness, such that the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office at the time had to seek a ministerial direction on value-for-money grounds before proceeding. The High Court has determined that domestic legislation gives the Government the necessary powers, but this does not preclude the possibility that removals to Rwanda of some individuals may conflict with the  provisions of the refugee convention. This and the lack of any enforcement powers in the arrangement further strengthen the case for scrutiny.
The Government should recognise that their use of the prerogative power subsists by virtue of the Government’s control of Parliament. The sovereignty they enjoy is that of the sovereign in Parliament. When they fail to recognise this, or abuse the privilege, they hasten the day when we will need to legislate to specify when and how the Government can enter into such agreements and in what circumstances Parliament must assent. I think that in this case the Government got the procedure wrong. I hope that today the Government, whether or not they persist in the policy, will accept that they got it wrong and undertake not to repeat that error.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, I refer to the register and my support from RAMP. One reason why the MoU is such an important political issue, as agreed by the committee and the Government, and also a moral issue, is the widespread fear about the implications for children wrongly assessed as adults. I welcome the assurance in a Written Answer that
“no one undergoing an age assessment, or legally challenging the outcome of an assessment, will be relocated until that process is fully concluded”,
but I am advised that where the child has been assessed as an adult at the border, even if they subsequently challenge that assessment, they may still be issued with a notice of intent, which can create acute anxiety, especially as they have only seven days to respond. Can the Minister say whether that advice is correct?
Given the many procedural errors identified in the High Court Rwanda judgment and the chief inspector’s comment that the age-assessment process for those arriving by small boats was “perfunctory”, how can we have confidence that unaccompanied children who do not understand the age-assessment process or have no legal support will not be wrongly issued with a notice of intent? Can the Minister explain why, when we have been told that no decision has yet been taken as to whether families with children might be relocated, Care 4 Calais reports that 42, or one-fifth, of its clients issued with a notice of intent since last August have children?

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, somewhat cynically, that the Government have chosen this memorandum of understanding rather than a treaty so it should not be subject to parliamentary approval under the relevant legislation. That would mean a full parliamentary debate, permitting the treaty to be rejected. We have been unable to debate the Rwanda situation until today. Surely there should have been a debate on whether Rwanda is a safe country to send asylum seekers to, particularly in light of the recent history of genocide and ethnic cleansing in that country. It is even more important because many people do not realise that if a migrant seeks asylum in  Rwanda and their application for asylum is granted, they only stay in Rwanda and lose the right to come here.
Few can doubt that our policy towards asylum seekers is in a mess. It is not just a failure to deal with migrant boats across the channel. I thought the Member of Parliament for East Worthing and Shoreham could not have put the problem better with his question to the Home Secretary at a recent Home Affairs Select Committee meeting. He asked her how a teenage migrant seeking asylum from an African country—and not Syria, Ukraine or Afghanistan—could apply for asylum. Her reply was that if the migrant arrived in the UK, they could put in an application on arrival; that would be the process. When Tim Loughton pressed her on how the migrant could arrive here legally, she had no answer. The disgrace of the current situation is demonstrated when the Home Secretary cannot answer a key question from one of her key supporters.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: They did not say so at the time but the Government now maintain that the CRaG Act 2010 overruled the previous understanding that the Government would also draw to Parliament’s attention agreements not given treaty form but which bind the nation and
“involve international obligations of a serious character.”
I argue that the Rwanda agreement, and perhaps Prime Minister Johnson’s agreements with Sweden and Finland on security, match that description, but the Government say that the 99 year-old Ponsonby rule is dead.
The Government also reject the International Agreements Committee’s proposal to agree criteria for deciding whether an agreement should be a memorandum of understanding or a treaty. They say that that would restrict the royal prerogative. Yes, it would; I understand the argument, although of course it would depend on what the criteria were. What I do not understand is that they also reject the alternative course of agreeing criteria in determining which non-treaty agreements are so significant as to justify parliamentary scrutiny—the scrutiny Ponsonby promised. There would not be very many. I recall from my past life that most MoUs are routine—updating, renewing and not amounting to very much. They are small beer, certainly not worth Parliament’s attention. But there are some that are very important, and I would say that the Rwanda agreement is one of them. So I urge the Minister to ask the FCDO to look again at the idea of agreeing criteria for separating the many sheep from the few Rwanda-type goats. Substance matters as much as form—I would say, more so.

Bishop of Durham: I declare my interest in RAMP as laid out in the register. The Lords Spiritual as a whole chose to speak out against the transfer of asylum seekers to Rwanda. We did not do this lightly, knowing the privileged role we hold in the life of our nation, but the memorandum of understanding brings into question fundamental issues about individual rights, our commitment to international law and  our moral standing as a nation. It is because of these deep and important questions that I believe the use of an MoU was highly inappropriate.
The Government, in response to the International Agreements Committee in 2020, said that MoUs are used primarily for “technical or administrative matters”, but in this instance, we are talking about the transport of vulnerable people thousands of miles away, before and without considering their claim to asylum. This is not technical or administrative; these are men, women and children, to whom we owe a duty of care under international law. With such far-reaching implications, parliamentary scrutiny and debate should have been facilitated, whether or not the Ponsonby rule, or subsequently the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, applies to non-treaty agreements. Let me also add that a monitoring board which has yet to meet and which sets its own work plan is not a sufficient level of oversight for an agreement of this nature.
I finish by briefly mentioning our responsibility to children. When announcing the Rwandan partnership, the then Home Secretary said that it would operate as a scheme mainly for single male migrants. However, we now know that Ministers are considering whether families seeking asylum at our borders will be subject to this deportation, the possibility of which I must say I find intolerable. Surely it would be unacceptable for any such extension not to be ratified by Parliament. If the Government do decide to include children in the scheme, which I implore them to simply disregard, they must commit to bringing it before this House. Children deserve the highest level of legal safeguards, in both the letter and spirit of the law.

Lord Udny-Lister: My Lords, despite being one of those who strongly support the Government, certainly on these Benches, I rise with regret to say that I am in agreement with what has been said by many others. After years of political neglect, our asylum system is clearly broken. I fear that the agreement with Rwanda, which has so far failed to act as a meaningful deterrent, is but a distraction from what needs to be done to break the stranglehold of the criminal gangs who are profiting from the exploitation of people.
Other noble Lords have touched on the technicalities of why it would have been wiser to use a treaty rather than a memorandum of understanding, so I will not labour that point, except to say that I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that an MoU eradicates the opportunity for effective parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can provide remedies for this concern in his winding up.
It is through the swift deportation of illegal immigrants to their safe country of origin, not through an MoU with Rwanda, that the perilous channel crossings will be brought to an end. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce legislation that will see illegal immigrants deported within days if their claims for asylum are rejected. The Government can be assured of my support if that legislation comes here. Recently, the Government’s successful deportation of 43 people back to Albania was a step in the right  direction—although a very small one when you consider that some 13,000 Albanians arrived in the UK last year. I wish the Government would direct more attention here. Does my noble friend agree that securing more bilateral agreements, such as the UK-Albania joint communiqué, must be the way forward if we are to secure our borders and have a fair asylum system?
I conclude by commenting on the asylum backlog. Some 140,000 people are waiting for a decision on their asylum claim. That is where efforts need to be directed, to get it under some kind of control.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town for several reasons, of which three are particularly important. I hope the Minister will offer a satisfactory response to them.
First, MoUs are not legally binding documents; they involve no legal obligations on either side and they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, to replace them is to emasculate our democracy. There are already threats to democratic practices in our country, and I do not think we need to add to them.
Secondly, given not just this Government’s record on migration but that of the previous one, there is always reason to worry about what they might do with the licence given to them to replace legal documents with memoranda of understanding. The important thing is that memoranda of understanding can easily become a kind of camouflage or cover-up under which you can write almost anything that you want.
Finally, asylum seekers will have no understanding of the prevailing conditions in Rwanda and therefore cannot know what effective representation they should make—hence there is always a danger that the MoU will badly damage their basic rights.
In the light of all this, it is not at all surprising that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that this proposal is incompatible with the 1951 refugee convention. It is not just him; a lot of other people have also reached that conclusion. I therefore fully support my noble friend Lady Hayter and hope that the Minister can reassure us that this will not become common practice.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is to be congratulated on bringing this aspect of the Rwanda agreement to the House for debate. It is one of the many contentious aspects of that agreement, and it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that the main driver of the choice of an MoU rather than a treaty is that it escapes full parliamentary scrutiny, let alone approval by Parliament.
Avoiding full parliamentary scrutiny has also made it more difficult to elicit from the Government a clear answer to the question of whether the agreement is consistent with our treaty obligations to asylum seekers under the 1951 refugee convention, to which we are a party. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, whose job is to ensure that parties to the convention respect its provisions, says that it is not.
The Minister wrote to me on 3 February setting out the reasoning behind his curt and cursory reply to my question on 24 January. That is welcome, but it is not convincing. The hard fact is that there is no provision in Article 31 of the convention or elsewhere in it authorising a party to refuse even to consider an asylum application before deporting the applicant. It is bizarre that in that letter the Government still referred wistfully to the Dublin convention, when it was their act of “getting Brexit done” that resulted in its loss.
All this may sound rather arcane, but it matters. The Government’s clearly proclaimed policy is to uphold the rules-based international order, but we are now, by unilateral assertion, deciding to act in breach of one of those rules. What is to stop others doing likewise? What would then remain of the rules-based international order? There are reports that the Government may be contemplating doubling down by introducing legislation to deport to Rwanda even potentially genuine asylum seekers—for example, Afghans fleeing the Taliban or Iranian women fleeing persecution—without any chance of consideration. Frankly, that is an appalling road to go down and I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will not go down it.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who has set out the case so well. In 1924, Arthur Ponsonby, then an Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office in a Labour Government presided over by one of my predecessors as Member for Aberavon, pledged that the Government would inform Parliament of all agreements, commitments and understandings that may in any way bind the nation.
The argument now is whether that commitment should include agreements that are not treaties, such as, in this case, a memorandum of understanding. I believe the general understanding of the reasons for the Ponsonby rule was that the knowledge of such issues should be made fully available to Parliament and that the public mind should be prepared for any action necessary. I am not particularly concerned with the minutiae of the argument about the extent of the rule; I am concerned about the substantial lacuna in parliamentary scrutiny in respect of significant MoUs.
Our committee reported that it was unacceptable that the Government should be able to use the prerogative to agree important arrangements with other states that have serious human rights implications without the scrutiny of Parliament. It is timely for the use of prerogative powers, with their origins in the mists of time, to be examined. The late Lord Mayhew and I, as former law officers, persuaded a parliamentary Select Committee that the use of the prerogative to authorise going to war was outdated. We should look at this again. Hardly any issue is more important to an individual seeking asylum than transfer to a foreign country without his agreement and, in this case, the scrutiny of Parliament.
I invite the Government to consider the development of policies in Spain and the USA which show that legislative scrutiny of non-binding agreements is not incompatible with the effective conduct of foreign affairs.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, there is much to desire in the MoU with Rwanda with regard to consistency, clarity and process. There will continue to be legal challenges. The wording of the MoU, together with various ministerial Statements in this and the other place, has revealed not only laughable errors in the Home Office decision-making process but has created confusion as to who is eligible for removal to Rwanda, what the criteria are and who makes the decisions.
Let me quote from some of these ministerial speeches and letters to parliamentarians:
“For every stage in the process, … our approach is to ensure that the needs and vulnerabilities of asylum seekers are identified and taken into consideration where appropriate. … Everyone considered for relocation will be screened and interviewed and have access to legal advice.”—[Official Report, 20/12/22; cols. 1070-71.]
“nobody will be removed if it is unsafe or inappropriate for them.”— [Official Report, Commons, 19/4/22; cols. 46.]
So the Home Office will apparently consider each individual’s particular circumstances before deporting to Rwanda. The Minister then says, unequivocally, that asylum claims will be determined in Rwanda. I ask the Minister: which is right? If it is the former, can the Minister enlighten the House on the time and resources required to assess each individual case in light of the legal advice that they are guaranteed? And how precisely would this lengthy process be an effective deterrent to the people traffickers?

Lord Sahota: My Lords, in October 2022 your Lordships’ Committee on International Agreements was quite right to express concern about this memorandum. It lacks access to justice for asylum seekers, it lacks parliamentary scrutiny, and it is not legally binding.
When I learned about this, like many other people, I was filled with disbelief. Have our Government done their due diligence on the human rights of Rwanda and looked at its history? Banishing people to another country is bad enough, but to Rwanda—which has an appalling human rights record—is another thing. I hear the High Court’s rulings on this, but close consideration must be given to the individual circumstances of each person. If the Government want to target the people smugglers and criminal gangs who profit from this enterprise, then they should spend all that money on that effort.
By associating ourselves with Rwanda on the human rights issues, we will lose credibility on the international stage; dictators and authoritarian regimes around the world will point this out to us when we criticise them for their human rights record. They will say that it is rich coming from us when we are in bed with Rwanda. I hope the Government will have second thoughts about this. Our country’s credibility and reputation are at stake here. We must tear this memorandum up.

Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it was a credit to the Conservative Party under David Cameron that they took up the cause of Rwanda—a country which had suffered the worst genocide the world had  known since the last war. The return to political and economic stability under Paul Kagame, even at some cost, has been remarkable. However, I have to say, like others, that Rwanda has not been a showcase of democratic government and human rights either. The FCDO website is not very encouraging about it, and the Helen Bamber Foundation, a much-respected NGO, said:
“This is a shamefully cruel way to treat people who have come to the UK to seek protection, fleeing persecution or conflict.”
The key question today is whether the MoU is compatible with international law—if we accept that there is an MoU. The Government say it is consistent with the refugee convention and the ECHR. But UNHCR gave its own opinion back in April 2022 that it was
“firmly opposed to arrangements that seek to transfer refugees and asylum seekers to third countries in the absence of sufficient safeguards and standards.”
Having been on the IAC for three years, I realise that the procedures around parliamentary scrutiny can be labyrinthine. This debate challenges, once again, the Government’s decision to make policy on a subject of huge public interest by way of an MoU. In their response to the committee, the Government said the non-legally binding instruments were a sufficient framework for parliamentary scrutiny but that it only
“may be appropriate to draw parliament’s attention to NBIs that raise questions of public importance.”
These words are hardly encouraging. It gives rise to a suspicion—also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh—that, in the case of Rwanda, the Government are unwilling to share or review policies that may be controversial and prefer to hide them behind an MoU. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that this is true.
Meanwhile, I congratulate the noble Baroness on achieving this debate. I wish her well with the committee in future.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness.
The FCDO written policy on guidance on treaties is perfectly clear. It states,
“The key difference between MoUs and treaties is whether or not there is an intention to create legally binding obligations… There is no hybrid. … an MoU is not legally binding.”
The Minister on 20 December referred to this as an “agreement”. I hope he does not do that in his winding-up speech today because the FCDO policy is also very clear. It says:
“DO NOT USE … agreement/ undertaking”.
I hope the Minister can do me the courtesy today of replying to the questions I asked him on 20 December, when he did not give me the courtesy of answering them then. What is the legal basis in domestic law for the commitments in this arrangement that is being provided? What is the legal basis in domestic law of the data sharing?
Given that this is a private arrangement with a company in Rwanda with a centre that I visited last June, which is on an annual rolling contract that will have to be renewed in March—next month—what is the breakdown of the £20 million of taxpayers’ money that has already been spent on no persons being sent?  What is the breakdown of the £120 million provided to the Rwandan Government on top of that? The very least the Minister can provide the House with—since the Government are not asking us to ratify this arrangement, not agreement—is to publish the contract for the receiving centre.
What are the processing times expected for those who will be sent to this centre? In December, the Minister said that the policy is that it could be for children and families. I say to the Minister very clearly that I saw no facilities for children and families in that centre. This is £140 million of taxpayers’ money, the purpose of which the Minister himself said is to remove an incentive. This is gross maladministration. The centre even has its own euphemism for it. The Minister can, at the very least, provide me with the answers today that he refused to give me in December.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, as we have heard from my noble and learned friend Lord Morris, it was in 1924 that the original Ponsonby rule was put in place; indeed, he was my great grandfather. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, believes that elements of that are still in place, even though the Government believe the CRaG Act supersedes the Ponsonby rule. Nevertheless, the principles underlying the Ponsonby rule are still the principles that this House should aspire to in properly scrutinising international agreements, particularly when they are so controversial as the agreement we are currently discussing.
I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for this Question and for her persistence. I trust that she will return to this matter in future debates and in the committee’s future work because the issue itself is not going to go away. I think all noble Lords who have spoken obviously believe that the Government have taken this route of action to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to have an in-principle defence of the approach the Government have taken because it seems to me that bypassing Parliament undermines Parliament itself and undermines the agreement which has been reached with the Rwandan Government.
My second point is about the agreement. There are a number of basic questions on the agreement’s merit—its cost, its viability, its lawfulness. We have heard that there is a backlog of 140,000 asylum seekers; we have heard the figure of £140 million or more being spent which so far has achieved nothing. It seems to me that the Minister has some serious questions to answer about the merits of the scheme itself, let alone the way the Government are seeking to put this in place. I hope that he can talk about both the principle and the practicalities of the memorandum of understanding that the Government have put in place. I also hope the Minister can reply to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about the possibility of a multitude of bilateral agreements for deportation and whether the Government see that as a way forward.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for  securing this debate. I must apologise that I will not be able to address all noble Lords’ contributions during this response. I am delighted to provide the clarity the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly asked me to provide as to the reasons why a memorandum of understanding was chosen in this regard.
The proposal to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda has been, and continues to be, the subject of considerable public debate. The number of people crossing the channel in small boats has increased exponentially, placing our asylum system under severe pressure as well as the extent to which services can be provided to those coming to our shores. Not only is every crossing attempt a potential tragedy, as we have seen far too often, but the people arriving via these small boats have travelled through and then left safe countries with fully functioning asylum systems.
Tackling the global migration crisis requires global solutions, and the United Kingdom’s ground-breaking partnership with Rwanda is an essential part of that approach. This policy will help to disrupt the business model of people smugglers, those gangs putting lives at risk using dangerous, unnecessary and illegal routes into the UK. The long-term strategic bilateral partnership that we intend to deliver through the migration and economic development partnership between the UK and Rwanda is built on the shared understanding that the current conventions for dealing with refugees and migration no longer work. I agree with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister that bilateral agreements are also important, but we need new approaches at scale to ensure that immigration is orderly and controlled. Noble Lords will appreciate that there is an urgency and considerable public interest in deterring unnecessary, illegal and dangerous journeys to the UK.
I will now turn to the Question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on the decision to use a memorandum of understanding for the migration and economic development partnership. As indicated in the Government’s response to the International Agreements Committee’s report, the Government’s decision to use a memorandum of understanding—a non-legally binding instrument—has the benefit of allowing the detail of the partnership to be flexible. The technical details may be adjusted quickly if needed with the approval of both partners.
The UK and Rwanda have a well-established relationship. There is a significant history of our two Governments working together, as the noble Earl observed. Most importantly, the Rwandan Government have reason to know that the United Kingdom places the utmost importance on Rwanda’s compliance in good faith with the terms of the memorandum. The obligations placed on Rwanda under this partnership are laid out clearly in the memorandum, and they ensure that both countries have the same understanding of these obligations.
Indeed, in its judgment, the Divisional Court of the High Court at paragraph 65 found:
“The terms of the MOU and Notes Verbales are specific and detailed. The obligations that Rwanda has undertaken are clear. All, in one sense or another, concern Rwanda’s compliance with obligations it already accepts as a signatory to the Refugee Convention.”
I can therefore confirm to the House that we are confident that Rwanda will honour its commitments. This position was also considered by the High Court at paragraphs 70 to 71 of its judgment, where it stated that
“the conclusion that Rwanda will act in accordance with the terms of the MOU and the Note Verbales rests on HM Government’s experience of bilateral relations extending over almost 25 years and the specific experience of negotiating the MOU over a number of months in 2022”.
Furthermore, the court found that
“the Home Secretary did not act unlawfully when reaching the conclusion that the assurances provided Rwanda in the MOU and Notes Verbales could be relied on”.
I should also note that adopting a treaty, rather than using memoranda as suggested by the noble Baroness, would not necessarily have afforded individuals the right to raise disputes in the way some noble Lords have suggested.
While the Government cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings, no court has ruled that this partnership is unlawful. In fact, the High Court, in the 19 December ruling, said that the arrangements entered into for the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the refugee convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and the statutory and other legal obligations on this Government.
I am therefore disappointed by the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others on the safety of Rwanda, which appear to be ill-informed and contrary to the High Court’s judgment. In paragraph 71, the court found that the Home Secretary’s assessment that
“Rwanda is a safe third country, was neither irrational, nor a breach of article 3 of the ECHR”.
The domestic legal framework that gives effect to removals under this partnership is backed by legislation which has already faced parliamentary scrutiny.
I welcome the court’s judgment that this policy is lawful, as we have maintained throughout. We will, of course, pay extremely close attention to the individual circumstances of those considered for relocation. Decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, and nobody will be relocated if it is unsafe or inappropriate for them.
The arrangement requires Rwanda to process claims in accordance with international standards, as I previously mentioned, and it ensures protection from inhumane and degrading treatment and from refoulement. We have assessed Rwanda to be a fundamentally safe and secure country, with respect for the rule of law and a strong track record of helping those in need. In paragraph 51 of its judgment, the High Court itself said that
“Rwanda has a significant history of providing asylum to refugees”.
This session concerned an important political arrangement underpinning our partnership. The Government carefully considered the report from the House’s committee which the noble Baroness chairs. As noted in our response to the report, we published the memorandum of understanding in full transparency in April last year, very shortly after it was concluded. The MoU was negotiated with utmost care and attention by both Governments.
It is not at all fair to suggest that His Majesty’s Government have avoided scrutiny. Ministers have engaged fully with Parliament regarding this arrangement, including via Oral Statements, Parliamentary Questions and written correspondence. Ministers and senior officials have made numerous appearances before committees, and we are here today discussing the issue. Of course, all of this is on top of the High Court’s very detailed consideration of this document.
The Government take the view that the constitutional convention known as the Ponsonby rule, as it existed and was practised, was in its entirety put on a statutory footing by the CRaG Act. We do not accept that there has ever been any convention whereby non-legally binding arrangements are routinely submitted to parliamentary scrutiny, and this is borne out by the consistent practice of successive Governments. Parliament did not consider disclosure of non-legally binding arrangements to be part of the Ponsonby rule when it looked to put the convention on to a statutory footing in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.
With that said, while we responded to the urgency and exceptional public interest in deterring these dangerous crossings to the United Kingdom, it is not at all right to say that this was rushed or that scrutiny was evaded. We have been clear that the memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda is a non-legally binding instrument. Such instruments are common mechanisms for recording political commitments and arrangements between states and—as I have already said—allow for flexibility.
A decision on whether to use a treaty or non-legally binding instrument will depend on various factors. Ultimately, the decision will be based on whether there is a need for legal enforceability or whether a non-legally binding commitment would be appropriate. While we have never claimed that the terms of the memorandum are to be legally binding under international law, the arrangements we have put in place provide sufficient assurances to us—and indeed have satisfied the High Court—that the arrangement will be operated in line with international obligations and in a manner which ensures the welfare and safety of those people relocated under it. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware of the means by which the delivery of the scheme will be overseen and assessed against the assurances in the memorandum.
I particularly highlight the fact that a monitoring committee has been appointed, as was referred to during the debate, whose members are independent from both the Rwandan and United Kingdom Governments, and who will be able to look at every part of the relocation process and will independently assess all conditions. The monitoring committee will produce a summary report for publication yearly for all to see.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: The Minister has only a few moments left. This is the second time that a Front-Bencher has asked specific questions which the Minister has refused even to acknowledge. I regret that I am going to have to escalate this up through the usual channels. It is just not acceptable that the Minister at the Dispatch Box does not even acknowledge valid questions from a Front Bench.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I think the noble Lord’s question related to the legal basis for the agreement in domestic law; I have addressed that in detail in the course of my speech to the House.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: No, you have not.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Well, I am sure that we can discuss this on another occasion.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: Before the Minister sits down—I think we have six minutes—he said that the Government used an MoU rather than a treaty because it could be amended. Does he accept that the detail of treaties can also be amended? More importantly, on an MoU, surely that could still—by the choice of the Government—have been laid for 21 days to give parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament will not be able to scrutinise the committee referred to by the right reverend Prelate, but the MoU could have been laid for 21 days. Does the Minister accept those two things, that the treaty itself could be adapted and that an MoU could have been laid before Parliament?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I thank the noble Baroness for those two questions. On the first point, no, to amend a treaty would be a more cumbersome process than the flexibility afforded by a memorandum of understanding. On the second point, it is clear that Parliament had considerable opportunities for scrutiny, as I have set out, and there was no want of scrutiny from the method adopted.

Lord Lansley: Can I press my noble friend on one point? Does he agree that the Government could have chosen to lay a memorandum of understanding under CRaG even if not required to do so, and that, as a result, it could have been debated in the House of Commons, which would have had a choice on whether to support the agreement or otherwise?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I appreciate the hypothetical question that my noble friend asks. As I say, the issue was one for the Statements that were provided to the House of Commons, and it seems that there was no want of scrutiny. Therefore, I am afraid that I do not accept that contention.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he was not able to answer all the questions asked. Will he please write to noble Lords with the answers?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Yes, certainly; we will have a look through them.
Sitting suspended.

Retained EU Law  (Revocation and Reform) Bill
 - Second Reading (Continued)

Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the overarching objective of this Bill is a timely and important opportunity to review, rationalise and update a wide-ranging tranche of legislation, and that I warmly welcome and strongly support. However, I have grave reservations about how the Bill proposes that it is done. My concerns are therefore about process, not purpose, and fall into two broad areas. The first is the role allotted to Parliament; the second is the uncertainties for, and potential impact on, consumers and businesses.
I will cover the first area with brevity. Having been a member of the SLSC when it signed off its report on this Bill and having become a member of DPRRC before it signed off its report, I fully endorse the concerns and recommendations set out in both those reports. They deal largely with concerns about parliamentary sovereignty, the need for greater parliamentary oversight, and the extent to which it is intended that secondary legislation will be used. I will not repeat those important concerns in detail, as they have been well articulated by others and not least by my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord McLoughlin, respectively the former and current chairs of those two committees.
I turn to a range of more practical concerns. In doing so, I declare my interest as president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, the CTSI, which is the professional body for trading standards. In expressing its concerns, I am raising concerns that have equally been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, who was my predecessor as president of the CTSI.
CTSI and the coalition of partner organisations see considerable merit in the opportunity to reappraise and update the legislation and regulations that underpin trading standards and consumer safety. However, they are deeply concerned about the practicability of doing this comprehensively, with due process and to good effect, across such a vast swathe of legislation, given the proposed sunset deadline at the end of the year and the minimalist approach to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
CTSI, alongside organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and Electrical Safety First, are therefore calling for the proposed sunset deadline of 31 December 2023 to be revisited. Their understandable fear is that, with thousands of pieces of vitally important but often complex legislation needing to be reviewed, rewritten or sunsetted, mistakes, omissions and contradictions are inevitable. This in turn could result in key protections for consumers and businesses being undermined or lost.
More specifically, CTSI and its partners are concerned that the Bill creates a lack of clarity around trading standards’ duties to enforce laws vital to ensuring the safety of products such as toys, electrical appliances and cosmetics; could weaken fair trading rules that protect consumers and law-abiding businesses; could undermine rules that ensure the welfare of animals  and the UK’s ability to export animal products to EU member states; could result in diminished information requirements for food provenance, allergens and use-by dates; could make convictions for consumer rights offences unsafe if the laws that underpin them are not clear and coherent; and poses a threat to life due to differences in technical metrology definitions in the healthcare sector on the road and at sea. These are very real uncertainties and concerns, as are those that relate to the role of Parliament and parliamentary procedure.
I said at the start that the Bill is a rare and, I believe, welcome opportunity to review and update a lot of important legislation. We therefore need to ensure that the processes that the Bill is proposing are made fit for purpose and command greater confidence inside and outside Parliament.

Lord Woodley: My Lords, the arguments against this undemocratic Bill are well understood by both Houses and, indeed, beyond. Unfortunately, there is not enough time today for me to do justice to these arguments, so I will attempt to highlight only my gravest concerns with the Bill—as many others have, in fairness.
Most of the most important employment rights, such as the protection of pregnant workers, maternity and parental leave, guaranteed rest breaks, equal treatment for part-time works, and especially TUPE protections, are derived from EU law, as the Minister knows. All these rights are now under serious threat, despite the Tory manifesto promising to
“legislate to ensure high standards of workers’ rights”.
I have asked the Minister twice, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said earlier, to confirm that no existing employment rights would be weakened or scrapped, but he point-blank refused to answer. When I asked him specifically whether he would allow TUPE protections to fall off the statute books, the Minister would only say that he
“will look at that and see whether it is appropriate for the UK economy”.—[Official Report, 1/2/23; col. 658.]
I find this answer totally unacceptable. How on earth can there be any debate about whether these vital protections are appropriate for our economy? What kind of economy do this Government want? One where workers see their pay and conditions slashed after takeovers; a race to the bottom? That is what we are left with without these protections. It is a far cry from the high standards we were promised.
Last week, my noble friend Lord Watts made the excellent point that Ministers were well fond of rolling over trade deals, and he asked why we could not roll over the protections that workers have now, to stop them worrying about their futures. Unfortunately—but, once again, not surprisingly—the Minister did not answer. Perhaps he might like to address this point today.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty to stand up for our constitutional role of holding the Government to account. It was highlighted by various committees of this House, including the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory  Reform Committee, that this Bill would lead to a “significant shift of power”—not to Parliament, but to Ministers. This Bill, therefore, runs counter to the principles of parliamentary democracy and is a blank cheque placed in the hands of Ministers, according to these committees. Is that what the Government really meant by “taking back control”? It certainly looks like it to me. Is it really what people voted for in 2019? I do not think so: they did not vote for that.
In its report, the delegated powers committee said:
“The Bill is sufficiently lacking in substance not even to be described as ‘skeletal’.”
It is outrageous; it is an abuse of the democratic process.
This Bill, and the Minister’s refusal to rule out a bonfire of employment rights, is completely the opposite of what the Government promised voters. It is therefore nothing less than the duty of this House to defeat it or, at the very least, to delay it until the next election, when the voters can decide for themselves whether workers’ rights are worth defending after all. I think I know what the voters will say.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, last week I hosted a meeting with Zsuzsanna Szelényi, the brave Hungarian former MP, a member of Fidesz and the author of Tainted Democracy: Viktor Orbán and the Subversion of Hungary. I reflected that this Bill, especially in the light of the reports from the DPRRC and the SLSC, is a government land grab of powers over Parliament, fully worthy of Viktor Orbán himself and his cronies. This is no less than an attempt to achieve a tawdry version of Singapore-on-Thames in the UK without proper democratic scrutiny, to the vast detriment of consumers, workers and creatives. It is no surprise that the Regulatory Policy Committee has stated that the Bill’s impact assessment is not fit for purpose.
It is not only important regulations that are being potentially swept away, but principles of interpretation and case law, built up over nearly 50 years of membership of the EU. This Government are knocking down the pillars of certainty of application of our laws. My noble friend Lord Fox rightly quoted the Bar Council in this respect. Clause 5 would rip out the fundamental right to the protection of personal data from the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. This is a direct threat to the UK’s data adequacy, with all the consequences that that entails. Is that really the Government’s intention?
As regards consumers, Which? has demonstrated the threat to basic food hygiene requirements for all types of food businesses: controls over meat safety, maximum pesticide levels, food additive regulations, controls over allergens in foods and requirements for baby foods. Product safety rights at risk include those affecting child safety and regulations surrounding transport safety. Civil aviation services could be sunsetted, along with airlines’ liability requirements in the event of airline accidents. Consumer rights on cancellation and information, protection against aggressive selling practices and redress for consumer law breaches across many sectors could all be impacted. Are any of these rights dispensable—mere parking tickets?
Many noble Lords—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, in her excellent maiden speech—the TUC and many others have pointed out the employment rights that could be lost, and health and safety requirements too. Without so much as a by-your-leave, the Government could damage the employment conditions of every single employee in this country.
For creative workers in particular, the outlook as a result of this Bill is bleak. The impact of any change on the protection of part-time and fixed-term workers is particularly important for freelance workers in the creative industries. Fixed-term workers currently have the right to be treated no less favourably than a comparable permanent employee unless the employer can justify the different treatment. Are these rights dispensable? Are they mere parking tickets?
Then there is potentially the massive change to intellectual property rights, including CJEU case law on which rights holders rely. If these fall away, it creates huge uncertainty and incentive for litigation. The IP regulations and case law on the dashboard which could be sunsetted encompass a whole range, from databases, computer programs and performing rights to protections for medicines. At particular risk are artists’ resale rights, which give visual artists and their heirs a right to a royalty on secondary sales of the artist’s original works when sold on the art market. Visual artists are some of the lowest-earning creators, earning between £5,000 and £10,000 a year. Are these rights dispensable? Have the Government formed any view at all yet?
This Bill has created a fog of uncertainty over all these areas—a blank sheet of paper, per my noble friend Lord Beith; a giant question mark, per the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—and the impact could be disastrous. I hope this House ensures it does not see the light of day in its current form.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, we recently celebrated the third anniversary of Brexit and it is indeed the gift that keeps on taking: taking control and scrutiny away from Parliament, effectively passing it to unelected officials in the Civil Service, and taking certainty, confidence and competitiveness away from businesses. The whole thrust of the debate today is what assurance is there that key protections that we have achieved will remain on the statute book and that there will be no gold-plating. I play tribute to my noble friend Lord Heseltine, who single-handedly eradicated gold-plating from the transposition of a very innocuous directive, such as the toy directive, into the home-spun rules of our home civil servants.
The dashboard is very difficult to navigate. It is a moving feast, but we know that there are some 1,780 Defra proposals. I pay tribute to the Defra officials who spent the best part of two years transposing farming, environment and other regulations into UK law at some considerable speed and therefore had to return with corrections. I do not blame them for that, but that shows us what the expectations will be with an even more limited timetable before us in the Bill.
As others have mentioned in the debate, the dashboard does not cover all retained EU laws agreed by the devolved Administrations, so it is no wonder that the  Welsh and Scottish Administrations have withheld their consent from the Bill. Now, with a sweep of the pen, all that we have achieved over years of transposing and passing into UK law these protections is going to be rolled away purely as a result of a political decision to achieve this arbitrary timetable before the next election.
I would like to judge the Bill before us this evening by the extent to which at the end of this process we will still be able to export and import, which we were told would not be jeopardised as we would have frictionless trade through the trade and co-operation agreement. I have been contacted by businesses I worked with 30 years ago and longer as a Member of the European Parliament in the food and drink sector, chemicals and, in particular, the cars and vehicle sector. We have identified a change in policy direction moving away from a functioning statute book to a period of tremendous uncertainty. No one in the debate this evening disagrees that the statute book should be kept under constant review. I think that all who have spoken expressing caution about the Bill are concerned about the manner in which the statute book is to be maintained. Parliament will not be in the driving seat; it will nominally be Ministers, but I would say unelected officials. What evidence is there that there has even been a proper consultation of all the interested parties affected, many of whom have been represented in their concerns being voiced today? I urge my noble friend and the Government to be prudent, drop any arbitrary deadline and seek to give a measured response where we can pay tribute to those who have expressed their concerns.
To the extent that we can still export and import, I have been contacted by those in the car sector who are concerned that we have only recently agreed type approval regulations. For chemicals, we have only recently agreed the UK REACH regime, and for the food and farming sector, animal health safety and welfare have featured largely this evening.
In conclusion, while my noble friend and I are on different sides of the argument regarding Brexit, throughout our careers we have held business dear to our hearts. Will he say which part of the Bill promotes business and will help to facilitate exports and imports?

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: Doctrinaire, ideological, subversive of Parliament, a headlong rush, an arbitrary timetable, a blank cheque for government by diktat—this Bill is coming in for a bit of criticism from Conservatives. I am not surprised, because the presumption that change is needed and the proposed method of change do not strike me as terribly Conservative. Lord Salisbury in 1892 defined Conservatism as delaying changes until they become harmless. I have always believed that he also said: “Change? Why should we change? Things are bad enough as they are.” I can get away with that as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the real expert on this, is not here; he says it is apocryphal. Here are Lord Salisbury’s successors running a rushed, in-house review of some 4,000 laws with a presumption that change is required because of the laws’ origins, not their effects.
I was there in Brussels during a period of peak legislation with the single market programme. I was there when the European Union was dancing to the tune of a British Conservative initiative, inspired by Margaret Thatcher, prescribed by Arthur Cockfield, pressed by John Major, driven through by Commissioner Leon Brittan. Were they all wrong? Is their legacy now suspect simply because they succeeded in getting the EU to buy their prescriptions for appropriate regulation?
Of course, some of the 4,000 laws could well be overtaken; I do not know. There could be sense in a sift done bottom-up, sector by sector, consulting those affected, balancing the consumer interest with the interests of producers and traders—but not this way; not top-down, in-house, with no consultation, minimal scrutiny, an end-year guillotine and new rules by decree cutting out Parliament.
Business hates this Bill. Business likes certainty. Business wants regulatory predictability. The perception of change for change’s sake is anathema to business. The chemical industry and Defra confirm that the cost of replacing the EU REACH regulations will be about £2 billion. That is just one industry. This Bill and the uncertainty that it creates will affect them all. No wonder the CBI opposes it so strongly.
Lord Salisbury also said in 1879:
“Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible”.
As regards this Bill, that seems to be exactly right. It is malign, misconceived, damaging, undemocratic, un-Conservative—and we should throw it out.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough: My Lords, people watching these proceedings will be astonished that this House seems minded to obstruct this Bill and to fail to fully engage with the difficult and messy process of self-government as an independent, sovereign parliamentary democracy, arising from the largest plebiscite in British history in 2016.
The Bill should be seen in the wider context of what went before and what is proposed, a wider historical context—what I might call the Benn challenge. In his valedictory speech to the House of Commons in March 2001, Tony Benn asked of those tasked with exercising power:
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/01; col. 510.]
Is that not the fundamental question at hand in considering the Bill today? The fact that the EU failed to answer that question is why Brexit happened.
The Bill’s opponents are mostly well-meaning and sincere, and I accept that, but many observers will see an effort to thwart Brexit and render it a failure. Some noble Lords pray in aid the need for scrutiny and oversight, but they were silent when 265,490 EU laws, judgments, directives, regulations and decisions—the mythical EU acquis—mostly taken behind closed doors and rubber-stamped by the European Council of Ministers, were forced on our sovereign Parliament between 1973 and 2020 by virtue of one Act of Parliament: the European Communities Act 1972, Section 2. No one  voted for that, unlike Brexit and the Conservative Party manifesto in 2019, and the elected House just last month, which gave this Bill a healthy Third Reading majority.
The withdrawal Act 2020 specifically and formally recognises in Section 38 the right of the UK to exercise—in its own way, within its autonomy and independence through a sovereign Parliament—its own legal regime. It was also well understood in 2018 that the withdrawal Act was iterative and transitional legislation, so a sunset clause is both logical and inevitable, although perhaps arbitrary, and any attempt to extend it beyond either 2023 or 2026 will be viewed as lacking democratic legitimacy.
There is no evidence—this is the Chicken Licken argument—that the Bill will inevitably lead to a weakening of our own domestic legal rights and protections. In any case, no Government can bind the hands of their successors. Any policy development that is against the interests of working people in this country will be judged harshly, and the efficacy of those policies will be judged at a general election. That is the basis of democracy. It is not our place to second-guess the views of the electorate at a forthcoming general election.
We now have opportunities to develop new policies and make our own laws on animal welfare, on vaccine rollout, on freeports and on diverging from EU solvency rules. The Bill honours the commitment made to the British people in 2016 and 2019. I regret that I have not been able to rebut the findings of the committee report published last Thursday, but in due course we will do that in Committee and on Report. Essentially, EU legal and political supremacy has no place in a mature, independent, self-governing democracy.

Lord Shinkwin: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and my noble friend Lady Bray on their impressive maiden speeches.
I am sure I am not the only one in this Chamber who longs for the day when we are united in holding the Executive to account for decisions and policies made here at home. But I cannot see how we can get to that point unless and until retained EU legislation no longer takes priority over domestic UK legislation. Surely that is a prerequisite for parliamentary sovereignty to be restored—and with it the fate of the people in Parliament and the Government’s ability to deliver—and indeed for the opportunities and benefits of Brexit to be realised. It is, as my noble friend Lord Frost said, the logic of delivering Brexit.
Now I recognise that some noble Lords are absolutely determined that this should not happen, and that the consideration of this Bill should be used as a chance to delay, in the hope that Brexit will never be enacted. I completely respect their right to hold such a position and to articulate it—if only they would. But I fear that instead we are in for another bout of Brexit-bashing amid the familiar and disdainful refrain that “they”—the people who voted leave—did not know what they were doing. As someone who knew exactly what he was doing when he voted leave, I fear that continued skirmishing simply delays the healing we so desperately need.
Like my noble friend Lady Bray, I have faith in our parliamentary democracy and in the people—as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough just reminded us—to ensure that, once accountability is brought home, as this Bill provides for in the medium to longer term, “they”, the voters, will decide at a general election whom to hire and fire on the basis of policies decided and delivered in the UK for the UK. They will have the final word. But for that to happen, this Bill—however uncomfortable we may find it—must pass first. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his tireless tenacity in ensuring that it does. He deserves our support.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, noble Lords have already heard from my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, a former Brexiteer who has seen the chaos we have already, before this Bill is enacted, and has said that she has had enough and wants to rejoin the EU, as the whole Green Party does. I was initially going to have a list—a chart—of all the practical problems but so many people have done such a great job on that already: the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, on labour rights, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on all the Defra issues and Defra’s incapacity to deal with them, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on the issues being raised for the devolved Administrations, whom the Government so often seem to ignore.
That the Government lack the capacity to deliver the fantasy they are setting out in any kind of orderly way is clearly not stopping them, or perhaps not being orderly is the intention of at least some parts of the Government. In the financial sector there is a lot of money to be made from chaos, as Naomi Klein showed us so clearly two decades ago in her explanation of the shock doctrine of disaster capitalism.
It is very clear that this Bill, should your Lordships’ House not oppose it, will be a complete working out of the hashtag #ToryChaos. I urge all sides of your Lordships’ House to oppose the Bill—to vote it down. We have heard from a barrage of Cross Benchers and more than a few Conservatives how dreadful it is. The responsibility is in our hands. How bad does a swathe of Henry VIII clauses have to be before your Lordships’ House takes responsibility? I direct that remark particularly to the Benches to my right.
As I am speaker number 46, much has already been covered and I aim not to go over old ground. Instead, I am going to take a different approach and interrogate the Government’s own stated intentions with the Bill and see how lacking a base in realism they are. In the Government’s own words on the retained EU law dashboard, the justification is:
“This will allow us to create a new pro-growth, high standards regulatory framework that gives businesses the confidence to innovate, invest and create jobs.”
I want to unpack that. They say they want to remove outdated regulation that may be hampering growth. What does “outdated” mean? Is a protection for nature, for workers’ rights, for consumer rights outdated? Who is going to judge? What kind of growth? Surely your Lordships’ House will agree that we do not want growth in water pollution, air pollution or exploitation of workers. All-out growth, of course, is the ideology of the cancer cell.
On creating a high standards framework, I go back to our earlier discussion of the environmental improvement plan and the issue of plastics, highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. We do not have a bottle deposit scheme in England, but many EU countries have one, so it is not EU rules that have stopped that. The French are racing towards getting rid of single-use containers in fast food stores—that is within EU rules.
On confidence to invest, I will quote an Institute for Government report from last year on business investment:
“The UK has persistently lagged other comparable countries.”
It is well behind Germany, France and Italy; it is not EU rules that are holding them back.
The Minister used the phrase “create … jobs” again. That is curious, when the lack of people for jobs is currently one of the UK’s great problems. We have 47,000 nurse vacancies, an 11% vacancy rate in the care sector and an overall vacancy rate of 1.3 million. Do we not need to find a way to use the human resources that we have now? EU rules are not stopping us doing that.
Finally, in introducing the Bill, the Minister spoke of “countless opportunities”. I assume he meant that rhetorically, but of course it is literally true: the Government are still trying to count the number of regulations and rules that the Bill covers—

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: I suggest that the noble Baroness brings her comments to a close.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: How can you make a law when you do not know what it covers?

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, in opening, my noble friend the Minister stated that the Bill will “benefit people and businesses”, but workers’ and employers’ organisations are united in their opposition to it: neither businesses nor consumers want the Bill. It would leave our country and its framework of rules, laws and protections in a state of prolonged uncertainty.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and a report from the Delegated Powers Committee offer their concerns in stark terms, with the Regulatory Policy Committee giving the impact assessment a red rating—namely, “not fit for purpose”. The Government admit that they do not even know which laws will be lost. I find this truly shocking. I have been in Parliament since 2015 and have watched in horror the stripping away of previous norms in the last couple of years. The idea that we should just throw all of our laws into a big hat, pull out a few, change a few and throw the rest away—without even knowing which ones are which—cannot be the way to run any country, let alone a serious parliamentary democracy. I ask my noble friend a simple question: how is this Bill in the national interest? Are we a parliamentary democracy? Does Parliament have the power to make, change and decide on laws, or has it been surrendered, or are we being asked to surrender it, to a group of Ministers, who may change very frequently? We do not know which Ministers will be in place at any one time.
I believe we have a duty to oppose this. Removing Clause 7’s mandatory directions to courts, removing Clauses 15 and 16’s excessive powers—never tightening regulations—and extending the irresponsible deadline of the end of 2023 would all be improvements, but they are not enough. Where is the comprehensive dashboard of all the laws and regulations that will be removed? Members of Parliament have no idea who will lose out and who will gain. Which laws will be deleted, which will be changed and how far can Parliament assess any of it?
This is not about Brexit; Brexit has happened. My noble friend Lord Frost said that it is part of the logic of Brexit, but I fear that Brexit is being used here as a smokescreen for a deregulatory power grab, the results of which are impossible to gauge—it is recklessly irresponsible. My noble friend insisted that this is not a power grab, but how else do we describe the Government asking Parliament to give up its power of scrutiny over the laws of the land and all its regulations by handing powers to Ministers to tear up regulations just because they may have an EU-related origin?
The overarching soundbite seems to be “regulations must be bad, so we have to get rid of them”, but “regulations” is basically another word for protections. Indeed, regulations can be drivers of growth in themselves; for example, environmental regulations can drive investment in skills, innovation and job creation. They protect every facet of our lives. In the words of the song,
“you don’t know what you got ‘til it’s gone”.
It is not too late for my noble friends and other noble Lords to pull us back from this brink.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Minister will remember that, about four years ago, we were discussing the EU withdrawal Bill. It was flawed in many ways—it took a long time, and we were raising all sorts of points —but we all recognised at that point that we needed something such as that, because we needed some degree of continuity, stability and time to consider whether we wanted the EU regulations or whether we wished to change them. We agreed, in principle, that we needed a Bill. The opposite is true of this: 80% of speakers in your Lordships’ House today have been fundamentally opposed to the Bill. A larger proportion of representations from civic society, industry and business—almost everybody; not just the usual wussy bugbears of the Government, such as human rights lawyers, trade unionists and environmentalists—is opposed to the basic precept of the Bill. So I will scrap the rest of my speech, except to pose the key question: what is your Lordships’ House going to do about it, with this unanimity of view?
If they were put to the vote tonight, I would vote for the amendments to the Motion. While I would have preferred to try to block the Bill at Second Reading, the House of Lords does not do that. So what shall we do if we follow our normal course? We need to make some fundamental amendments to the Bill, and I will suggest five. We should establish, before we go any further, a proper parliamentary process for considering the remains of the EU regulations, which  probably needs to be a body of both Houses. We should delete the arbitrary sunset deadline of December this year, which is less than 11 months away. We should delete the provisions in Clause 15(5), which mean that we can alter the regulations only in a deregulatory way, with a very narrow definition of deregulation. We should put in the Bill the declarations made by Ministers that workers’ rights and environmental protections will not diminish. We should also move back the ultimate sunset clause of the end of 2026, as we need more time. Frankly, the reindeer in Lapland can wait a bit; there is, after all, still a statute on our book that says that you are allowed to kill a Scotsman in Carlisle if he is carrying a bow and arrow, but not on a Sunday—we have never deleted that one. While we need to delete some laws in due course, let us take proper consideration under parliamentary procedure and not under ministerial fiat.
There is such unanimity of view that the House of Lords needs to get out of its pram and assert itself. If necessary, we should do so more than once. If the Government do their usual job of rejecting all Lords amendments, let us send it back again; then the Government will have to decide whether to use the Parliament Act, by which time we will be in a general election and, hopefully, the world will change.

Baroness Boycott: I would like to add that I am very keen to get out of the pram with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—I think it is a very good idea. I want to make a few remarks about food. The regulations that we have about food, most of which have happened in Europe, are about protection. In fact, we do not get enough of it. So I am completely dismayed that everything in this Bill says that there can be no further strengthening of regulations.
At the moment, the food companies are allowed to kill us slowly. They cannot kill us quickly. In other words, if you walk into a high-street fast-food restaurant, you are not going to drop dead. But, if you lived on food from that high-street fast-food restaurant, you would probably drop dead, or at least have diabetes, or be in ill health by the time you were 50 or 60 and living a bad life because of bad food. So we need more regulation.
I agree with so much of what has been said tonight, but in my few minutes, I want to give your Lordships an idea of how much relates to food, farming and public health that we are possibly going to throw out of the window. This is about antibiotic use on farms; it is about harmonised testing; it is about the banning of the use of hormone growth promoters; it is about the import of meat from animals which have been treated with hormone growth promoters. People are now beginning to understand what this does to the human body—it ain’t pretty.
All food safety laws, including the maximum containment for BSE monitoring; setting maximum residue levels for pesticides; lists of countries allowed to import meat; health marks on meat; labelling of beef; country of origin labelling on food—remember the horse meat scandal—preventing river pollution from agricultural activity; training staff to perform these checks at borders; increasing border controls and  emergency measures for the entry of certain goods; as well as the huge one about the transportation of animals, which has been something we have worked on with the EU and we have done well here. Any suggestion that we would lower our animal welfare standards in the pursuit of capitalism and a quick buck is, quite frankly, disgusting. Rules on the production and labelling of organic produce are also possibly going to be sunsetted. And, by the way, who came up with the idea that sunset was a verb?
I will quote the Food Standards Agency, because it has an extremely brilliant new chair, Susan Jebb. She said:
“In the FSA, we are clear that we cannot simply sunset”—
she used it—
“the laws on food safety and authenticity without a decline in UK food standards and a significant risk to public health”.
The task ahead of us to go through these rules is very challenging and it inevitably means that we will have to deprioritise other important work. Is this what we want? We do not have a great food system at the moment; I have banged on about it long enough. We now stand looking at an even worse one and making good people, such as Susan Jebb, go through basic laws. Please, let us find a way, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, to get out of the pram and stand up to this outrageous business.

Lord Balfe: My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register and congratulate my noble friend Lady Bray and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on joining us. I have known them both for some years and know they will make a distinguished contribution.
The points I have to make are about transport and somewhat technical, so the Minister may need to write to me rather than answer. They have so far identified 424 transport instruments that will be affected by the Bill, but no one is actually sure that that is the correct final number.
My first point is about safety legislation and regulation, which have developed to support the incredibly high levels of safety enjoyed by passengers and crew aboard UK-registered commercial aircraft. I remind noble Lords that the last fatal crash in the United Kingdom involving a passenger plane on the UK register was in 1990. There is a threat to the cohesiveness of this complex web of aviation regulations if some parts are inadvertently or thoughtlessly removed, possibly just because they are overlooked or forgotten. Safety regulation should always be amended in an evolutionary way, not by this slash and burn approach.
My second point concerns legislation which is relied on by the aviation industry in a secondary sense. Passengers with reduced mobility, environmental problems, security and consumer protections are all covered by mature and complex, often overlapping, regulation, and they are at risk should the Bill become law, with the supporting jurisprudence falling. There are also fatigue-related parts of the specific mobile worker working time directive which could be lost inadvertently.
Thirdly, there is a matter of confidence in the legislative process. People live in the confidence of a mature and effective safety system, which means that  the hazard they face is near zero. Much of this legislation is secured by international agreement, some of it under EU law and some of it under other parts of the law. But, with this sunset clause approach, there is a danger that some of it will be discarded without thought, and the work to generate new legislation is, frankly, a distraction. We ought to leave this legislation where it is.
Finally, I draw attention to the fact that, in November 2022, the DfT briefed the DfT industry engagement forum on aviation safety on the Bill. At this cross-industry safety body, even the DfT made clear that its preference was for the maintenance of the sitting arrangements. It emphasised that it was finding it impossible to impress on people higher up in government that this was the officials’ policy: so officials in charge of safety are apparently being ignored. At an appropriate time, I will be looking for support to amend the Bill to look after the safeguarding provisions of safety legislation. I hope the Minister will make that unnecessary by bringing forward an amendment to exempt them.

Lord Cormack: If the Minister does not and my noble friend does, I will be glad to give him my support.
My Lords, I begin by congratulating our two new Members, my noble friend Lady Bray and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I want just to say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, that everyone in this country has reason to be grateful to her because, at a time when her party did not have its most responsible leadership, she was a model of temperance, pragmatism and good leadership, and we are all in her debt for that.
I am afraid I share the misgivings of those who do not like the Bill. That will not come as a great surprise to many people. Government by diktat and by deadline is never a good idea. It is particularly not a good idea when it marginalises Parliament in the process. What we face is a marginalisation of Parliament and an accretion of power to the Executive. Yes, individual Ministers may exercise that with discretion and good sense, but they should not have that power, which will be vested in them if the Bill goes through on this ridiculous deadline when there is no need for a deadline. We would have escaped the Irish protocol had there been a good acceptance that a deadline was not the best way to govern. We would have avoided many other disasters in recent years if we had adopted a similar process.
I say to my friends and colleagues who take a different view of the Bill, please, tomorrow, read the speeches of my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord McLoughlin; one a self-proclaimed Brexiteer, who sees the constitutional difficulties in the Bill, and the other a former Government Chief Whip and a very good friend of mine who has done a wonderful job in his career in Parliament—I was proud that he came from my constituency. These are not ciphers; these are people who have strong, coherent views based on real facts.
Although my noble friend Lord Hamilton—I listened to him; he might just give me the benefit—tried to dismiss this Bill, it should not be dismissed. It is a constitutional monstrosity. That point was also made  by my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Young of Cookham and many others around your Lordships’ House. We have a duty to parliamentary democracy. We do not have the final word, and nor should we; we are not the elected House. However, we have a constitutional duty.
Although people talked of great majorities in the other place, they were more or less on party lines—majorities of around 50 or a little more. They were not sweeping majorities, such as we have had with certain Bills before us, but majorities on party lines with people obeying the party Whip. As far as I am concerned—I have always adopted this stance throughout my 53 years in Parliament—a Whip is a guide. It is a request, not an instruction or order. I ask all my noble friends to remember that.

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: My Lords, setting out on a journey when you do not know where you are going seems somewhat unwise. Politicians sometimes have to pursue careers without certainty as to the outcome, but as legislators we really should have some idea of where we are going.
Here we are considering a rare situation: a complex Bill that sets out to abolish many regulations and accepted and important rules, without the foggiest idea of what may or may not replace them. The Government do not intend to replace some at all, but others are vital to businesses big and small and critical to other processes. They are to be abandoned without proper scrutiny or thought-through replacements. How many pieces of EU-derived legislation are we talking about? The Government do not know.
However, my concerns with this Bill are not about the principle but about the process. The scale of the task in the proposed timescale is enormous, and I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the end of 2023 has been chosen as a date for disposal in all cases. This creates significant resource issues and there is insufficient capacity in our Civil Service to deal with this effectively. Surely, it is also a distraction at a time when the Government’s focus should be on matters of much greater importance.
A danger presented by the sunset clause is that, as the default position, swathes of retained EU law could expire without our knowing it, leading to many unintended consequences such as gaps in the law and important protections inadvertently dropping out of regulation. Provisions in the Bill will also allow the Government to amend or revoke retained EU law by means of secondary legislation, much spoken of today, effectively sidelining Parliament and removing any form of scrutiny. We have spoken up about this “executive grab” on many occasions before, but this would be a stage too far. Maybe the other place has lost its appetite for proper scrutiny, but this House has not and must not. As my noble friend Lord Young said earlier, it is also noteworthy that its own independent Regulatory Policy Committee has called an impact assessment conducted by the Department for Business “not fit for purpose”.
The breadth of legislation affected is well reflected by the groups that have expressed deep concerns: the National Farmers’ Union, the Bar Council, the Institute of Directors—I could go on. We know that British  business needs certainty, continuity and transparent regulatory processes. This Bill kills that concept. There is also the impact on the UK to consider. Given that the Bill will confer powers on both the UK Government and, where applicable, the devolved Administrations, there is concern that different approaches may be taken, producing uncertainty and divergence between our constituent nations.
The vast majority of retained EU law, which the UK—and I as an MEP—played a key role in shaping as part of a democratic process, is vital in many spheres. It would be better to look at the small proportion of retained EU law that the Government believe is not working and rewrite it under primary legislation once the impact of such changes is fully considered by Parliament.
Of course, those who are promoting this legislation claim that removing the influence of the ECJ and replacing it with the British courts in relation to derived laws is justification itself. Lawyers here will hardly—for once—be grateful for the confusion and uncertainty created by these new powers. Some areas of the law do need improving, but this must be done in a considered manner. The Government must extend the 2023 deadline, or at least allow Parliament the opportunity to consider what laws need replacement and what alternatives are to be put in place to maintain stability.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the furious frustration expressed today at being asked to grant an Executive a licence to legislate on thousands of legal instruments, all without accountability to Parliament or the public. I empathise because that anger at a democratic deficit was exactly what prompted me to vote to leave the EU. These very EU retained laws started life as secondary legislation impositions on the UK Parliament: they were directions from and obligations to the EU Executive. They were products of a supranational institution whose very design is to ring-fence swathes of lawmaking from national electorates and to delegate sovereign powers to unaccountable European Commissioners, the European bank, et cetera.
Do not get me wrong: there are problems with this Bill. The Government may have missed an opportunity to use the retained law issue as a spur for democratic renewal. They could have launched nationwide town-hall meetings and debates to guide decisions on what laws to keep or delete. But, to note, whatever the anti-democratic dangers of this skeleton Bill, there is a popular mandate behind the Bill’s intent: to fulfil a promise of taking back control of our legal system by abolishing EU supremacy. We do indeed need to give domestic courts more discretion to depart from retained EU case law—they can take it into account but should not be required to follow it. Also, the real constitutional outrage before us is not the Bill so much as the fact that some domestic primary legislation remains subordinate to EU law. I am not sure that complaints that the sunset clause means changes are rushed will cut it with the public. For many millions who voted to leave in the largest democratic vote in UK history, the impression is of sloth, prevarication and obstruction. They deserve a sense of urgency to finish what voters started in 2016.
Many of the core objections we have heard today seem to be driven by a failure of imagination. Many noble Lords have cited professional bodies, NGOs, employers organisations, trade union leaders and lawyers—all who appear unable to imagine social and economic progress happening without retained EU laws. Nowhere is this more gallingly illustrated than in accusations that the Bill will create a bonfire of workers’ rights. Surely this legalistic presumption is insulting to decades of self-organisation by working-class people who fought tooth and nail to win those gains. Maybe tell the RMT rank and file members—many of whom I campaigned alongside for Brexit—that their rights are safer in EU retained law than on their picket lines. Do I trust the Tory Government with workers’ rights? Of course not. But I do not trust EU law either. The first time I heard of the model strike-breaking legislation in the form of minimum service requirements was when it was being eulogised in the European Parliament. And, yes, I will be opposing it when it comes to this House.
The TUC briefing warns that this Bill jeopardises the agency workers directive, but we might note that this very directive is a device used to avoid paying agency staff at the same rate as employed staff. It has been used by the ECJ to break collective bargaining agreements via the 2007 rulings in the Viking Line and Laval cases. Other briefings warn us this Bill will drive a wrecking ball through women’s employment rights and equality legislation. Actually, a far greater threat to equality law in 2023 is not this Bill but the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Act. How disappointing that all those condemning this so-called dodgy legislation today have not been clamouring to oppose this material assault on women’s sex-based rights that threatens the UK-wide Equality Act.
The 4,000 retained EU laws were put on the UK statute books without Members of this unelected House crying democracy. Earlier, we were assured that it was all okay because, as one noble Lord explained, there were special behind-closed-door committees that scrutinised them. There was no mind that, no matter how many British voters might object to any one of those laws, there was nothing—zilch—they could do. The lack of outrage at that democratic deficit—

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: The noble Baroness has exceeded her time limit. Perhaps she could bring her comments to an end.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: Well, noble Lords get the gist.

Baroness Lawlor: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and my noble friend Lady Bray and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—so you have four noble Baronesses tonight on different sides.
I welcome this Bill to remove and reform EU law. It honours the country’s decisions in the 2016 referendum and the 2019 general election leave the EU, its legal orbit and its corpus of law. The voters’ mandate was clear—to restore sovereignty so that the laws under  which we are governed reflect their wishes and the Parliament they send to Westminster honours their mandate. The Bill honours that mandate in two principal ways. First, it accords supremacy to UK law, ending that of the EU where there is incompatibility. Secondly, retained EU secondary legislation will, unless otherwise decided, lapse at the end of 2023—the sunset clause about which we have heard so much today.
Others have spoken about the economic potential of this measure. I shall touch on the concerns, which I do not share, practical and constitutional. The practical concerns relate to timing and uncertainty—what is thought to be too short a timeframe and possible uncertainty in so rapid a switch to a new system, which could, it is thought, be bad for business. But not only should the deadline be achieved quickly and smoothly if individual departments get down to the task—a task with which they will already be familiar through the laws for which they are responsible—but the more rapidly this corpus of secondary legislation is removed or adapted for UK law, and the sooner the two systems of law end, the greater the certainty for all. The constitutional concerns relate to what is seen as the Executive overlooking Parliament—or what others have called, in more colloquial language, a power grab.
We are speaking here about secondary legislation, which was introduced under the EU, much of it without proper parliamentary scrutiny. It did not reflect the wishes of the people of this country but was the result of a Byzantine system of laws under an unelected European commission and handed down from on high to Parliament. Moreover, there are good reasons for acting as proposed. Unlike the UK system of law, EU legislation is based on the continental system of law. It is a different form of law. It enshrines the precautionary principle covering every possible situation, but often does so too late for innovators and entrepreneurs. Four thousand is the number of regulations we have heard mentioned today, but more laws do not necessarily mean better law.
Moreover, Ministers are and will be accountable, but to Parliament, and more accountable and more important to the people of this country, who, at a general election, send Parliament to Westminster. It is from the people that the authority of Parliament derives, not from itself. Governments listen to the voice of the people and have acted decisively and rapidly throughout the centuries: workmen’s compensation in the 1890s; national insurance and pensions in the 1910s; widows’, orphans’ and old age pensions in the 1920s; holidays with pay in the 1930s; family allowances, national insurance, maternity allowance and legal aid in the 1940s. I therefore welcome this measure. I have no doubt that the Government will move ahead rapidly and I shall do nothing to delay the passing of the Bill.

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: My Lords, I think it is time I brought a bit of consensus—a bit of unanimity—to this House: I am a rotten politician.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Randall of Uxbridge: You see? I got the House’s agreement straightaway. The reason is that I have been listening to these speeches, including the two excellent maiden speeches from my noble friend Lady Bray and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady—I congratulate them on speaking on a non-controversial Bill, as per the tradition—and I can see merit in many of the arguments. I do not want this to be about dogma, though. I can see that there is a polarisation between those for Brexit and those opposed to it—but not among everyone.
But the Bill is not about this. As many have said, and as my noble friends Lord McLoughlin and Lord Hodgson have pointed out in their committees, that is not the way forward with this Bill at this particular moment. My noble friend Lord Young made an extremely good point when he said that those people who thought that powers were coming home found that they had been delivered to the wrong address; they were not delivered to Parliament. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Hamilton, who made a very good point: why were some of these laws that we are talking about and are worried about not enshrined in law previously? They have had time to work on this.
I will speak briefly; it has all been said, and there is no point in overdoing it. I declare my interests in conservation as in the register. I want to concentrate on one aspect that I have concerns about, which I hope the Government will be able to reassure me on at some stage: the habitats directive. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, also mentioned this. This was not brought in by the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels—well, it was, except it was actually UK-originated. We in this country pushed that forward, probably reluctantly, on a lot of the European Union. We cannot afford for that to go. You might say—as I am sure my noble friend will, in his customary agreeable manner—that there is no intention to do so at all, but I heard, not so long ago, that in the push for growth some of these regulations were potentially at risk. I do not want that.
All I would say is that I have been told over the years that with great age comes wisdom—well, not in my case. I think Voltaire said that with great age comes responsibility. I hope so, but I have to say to noble Lords that, in my case, with great age comes great cynicism, and I am afraid that I will need a lot more reassurance before I can allow the Bill to go forward in its current state.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich: My Lords, having spent too much of my working life in the innards of EU law, I am as conscious as anyone of its inadequacies, particularly for a country that is no longer able to shape the content and development of that law, as I think we once did rather successfully through our participation in its Commission—where I had the honour to work for Lord Cockfield—its Council of Ministers, its Parliament and its courts. So, it is right that we should engage forward gear, address the issue of supremacy and review the EU laws retained in our system, weighing in each case the advantages of continued alignment against the opportunities for striking out on our own.
Need this take what the Minister described as “decades of parliamentary time”? Not if we follow the model that literally stared us in the face for the first three hours of this debate: the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which students of the annunciator will know was being debated in Grand Committee. Hundreds of items of retained EU law, identified after a painstaking review, are listed in that Bill for revocation—a list which is, of course, amendable by Parliament. Powers are provided for new rules to be made, after consultation and engagement with parliamentary committees. That is a process which could and should be adapted to other fields in which the view is taken that it is time to move on. Yet this Bill takes another course: it asks us to sign away both the authority of Parliament and what remains of this country’s reputation for considered and responsible lawmaking.
What is to be done? Like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I offer a few ideas to start us off. First, on revocation, if the sunset clause cannot be moved, the Commons should at least have a veto over decisions to revoke, as provided by the cross-party Creasy-Davis amendment in the other place. This would place a guard-rail on the edge of the cliff.
Secondly, replacement: the astonishing Clause 15 should be removed, as recommended by our Delegated Powers Committee. If it must remain, as our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has said, we must contemplate what it described in carefully chosen words as
“a procedure by which the Houses can modify an instrument.”
Clause 16, its powers not time-limited like the others, also needs attention.
Thirdly, there should be a guarantee that powers in the Bill will not be used in a way that contravenes the Northern Ireland protocol or the level playing field provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement.
We should also address a point not much touched on today: the legal certainty issues in Clauses 4 to 7 noted by the Bar Council—commendably on its part, since we barristers thrive on uncertainty and, unamended, the Bill will provide rich pickings indeed.
Last May, in the debate on the gracious Speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, asked,
“what is the point of us being here if, when we identify a serious constitutional problem, we never do anything about it except talk?”—[Official Report, 12/5/22; col. 130.]
He was right. The Bill is an attack on the constitutional role of Parliament, a view expressed eloquently across this House from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. The analogy of powers under the European Communities Act 1972 is a false one, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, explained with authority, and even if it were otherwise, two wrongs would not make a right. The powers of this House are modest, and properly so, but if the views so firmly expressed today are not heeded by government, we will be justified in using every one of them.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere: My Lords, I think I detect a certain limp and enervated air in the Chamber, largely as a result of the length of this debate—I am the 57th and last of the scheduled  Back-Bench speakers. However, I fancy that it is also perhaps a little because of, in the wider sense, the length of the debate. We have been arguing these points for six and a half years now, and one sometimes feels that it is as though we were in the trenches in Flanders, with every clause—every legislative proposal—fought over as fiercely as a clod of dirt in no man’s land.
The battle lines were drawn this afternoon in the early speeches, and very little advance was made. My noble friend the Minister—and my noble friend Lord Frost, who I suppose is the ultimate author of these proposals—set out the case for the Bill, which is that you cannot have a special category of law in perpetuity on the statute books and that this was always intended to be a contingent and transitional arrangement; and then the case on the other side was made eloquently from all sides, from people in every party and on the Cross Benches, namely that we should be careful about transferring powers from the legislature to the Executive, and that this constitutes a Henry VIII clause.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view. In a perfect world, we would not need to do this. However, the world we inhabit is not perfect: it is gross, sublunary and very much imperfect. I wish that we had gone ahead and deregulated at some point over at least the last three years since Brexit came into effect, if not the last six years since the referendum. We have been very slow to seize the regulatory and competitive opportunities afforded to us by independence. However, as I say, we live in an imperfect world. The real reason for the haste was given—with the frankness that a Back-Bencher is allowed and Front-Benchers are not—by my noble friend Lord Lilley: if this corpus of law is left untouched, people will make all sorts of claims about the likely impact of its abolition, and we will be left with this image of some kind of Dickensian workshop at the end of the day. The only way of anticipating and disproving that is to go ahead and show that it was not the case.
I had not heard much mention of Henry VIII before I came here but I have been hearing it a lot recently. It is worth remembering that every law here that is being scrapped is itself a piece of secondary legislation that came before your Lordships’ House out of a system which really does involve a massively powerful Executive and a very weak legislature. I was in the European Parliament for 21 years. As many of my former colleagues on all sides here will recall, the European Commission, extraordinarily, is both a legislative and an executive body, despite being unelected. It has a monopoly on the right to initiate legislation. Yet very few of the people who are complaining now about these Henry VIII clauses complained then, and nor did they complain about the mother of all Henry VIII clauses, Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972—whoever the mother of Henry VIII was. Oh, it was Elizabeth of York, the luckless lady who lost so many of her kin in the Wars of the Roses.
I suppose that it is a very good thing that we do now care so much about the supremacy of our Parliament. It would have been nice if more voices had been raised when we had this torrent of law imposed from abroad, but better late than never. It would have been nice, as recently as the lockdown legislation, if there had been  a little more concern about the powers being granted to the Executive, but joy shall be in heaven more over one sinner that repenteth. If one of the great advantages of Brexit was that it would restore Parliament to its centrality in our national story, then it is already working.

Lord Hacking: My Lords, I have been given permission to speak in the gap, which I will do very briefly. I will start with how I come into this issue. When I first arrived in the House of Lords in 1972, there was the European Communities Act. I served on the European Community Committee, which later changed its name to the European Union Committee. Your Lordships will remember the brief intervention at the beginning of this debate by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, when the Minister was speaking. He might find it more awkward, now that he is on the Woolsack, to intervene when the Minister speaks again. However, his intervention drew attention to the work of the European committees, in this place and the other place.
What did we do? We were given drafts from the European Union of directives and regulations. We were then given the opportunity to comment. We called evidence, we wrote a report, we sent it back to the Commission in Brussels and surprisingly, you may think, a lot of our recommendations were accepted. Therefore, when the Minister said that the European committees had no power to veto the drafting—I have forgotten his exact words—that got missed out, because we did have a good opportunity to do so in looking at the drafts.
Where are we now? I have heard every speech except one. I begin by giving the score. Only 10 speakers have spoken permanently pro Bill. One or two others have hesitantly spoken pro Bill, out of a total of 58 speakers. That gives a message, does it not? My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said that we should not pass this Bill. I suggested to my Front Bench that we should oppose the Bill—that we should not allow it to go any further. I am afraid that I was told that this was not the policy. I then moved towards the Liberal Democrat Benches. I got more favourable noises but certainly not “We should not pass this Bill”.

Lord Fox: The noble Lord did not talk to the Front Bench.

Lord Hacking: I am sorry. I was tempted then to move over to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and his flock, the Cross Benches. He did not say that to me, but I am a former Cross-Bencher and I think that his answer was, “I have no control over the Cross Benches”. I even thought that, under the generalship of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, there might be a cohort from the Government Benches to move that this Bill do not pass. I am afraid that I failed in all those endeavours, but that is clearly my wish.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, might understand that there are lots of things that the Liberal Democrat Benches might want  to achieve, but, unfortunately, we cannot do things on our own and we need rather considerable support from other Benches.
We have heard some very eloquent and forceful criticisms of the Bill. I commend all those speeches, not only but especially from my own Benches. I am sorry that I lack time to react to most of the speeches I appreciated, though that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has to be a witty exception. I will nick the terms used by the noble Lords, Lord McLoughlin, Lord Hannay and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, respectively: “all powers, no policy”, “scrappage scheme”, “constitutional monstrosity” and “the gift that keeps on taking”.
I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway—we come from the same borough—on her maiden speech. She adequately and expertly refuted the assertion, made by the Minister a couple of times in this Chamber in the past fortnight, that UK employment law owes nothing to EU law. She is a very valuable addition to this House. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bray of Coln. I hope that she did not learn the wrong things from Ken Livingstone.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, reminded us how un-Conservative, and certainly un-Thatcherite, the Bill is, with its revolutionary approach to eradicating at a stroke EU laws crucial to business, as well as to unions and many other aspects of life. He rightly warned that any potential investor would be deterred by “a giant question mark”.
Only a few voices—was it 10? I did not count quite that many—were raised in fervent support of the Government. Otherwise, we heard from across the House, as we are hearing from commentators and interested parties outside, that the Bill is extremely unwise, ill considered and reckless. I do not know of anyone outside a rarefied circle of cheerleaders—that is, anyone sensible and reasonable, even for a Conservative—who thinks the Bill is a good idea. Can the Minister cite anyone?
Stephen Kon, competition lawyer at law firm Macfarlanes, said that it is hard to think of a piece of legislation that has been so broadly and deeply criticised. The Hansard Society says that the Bill’s approach to REUL is “fundamentally and irresponsibly flawed”. Journalist Peter Foster—from that woke, left-wing rag, the Financial Times—has said that this Bill
“is a reminder that the outwardly sensible Sunak government still comes with some pretty crazy baggage”.
The distinguished legal commentator, Joshua Rozenberg, has called the Bill “dangerous”. The experienced George Peretz KC says:
“Fiddling around with the law when you don’t know what the consequences of the fiddle are is not obviously a good idea”
and suggests that
“if you don’t know what the effect is of what you are doing, don’t do it”.
Sir Jonathan Jones KC, former head of the Government Legal Service, says
“it’s a very bad way to legislate”.
The Bar Council, as others have quoted, says that the Bill
“will damage the UK’s reputation for regulatory stability, predictability, and competence on which growth-promoting investment in critical sectors of our economy depends”.
As has been much quoted, the independent Regulatory Policy Committee of experts red-rated the impact assessment for the Bill as “not fit for purpose”. The chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link said that scrapping environmental laws would be “legislative vandalism”.
Noble Lords get the picture. But after director-general of the CBI, Tony Danker, said the Bill risked uncertainty and chaos, the Minister last week breezily brushed aside the fears of the boss of UK’s top business organisation as wrong. We are well beyond the era when the Tory party even claims to be the party of business. It has just gone rogue. This Bill is not some arcane or obscure exercise. It will affect substantive law and thus businesses and all kinds of organisations in the many fields already cited in this debate.
I will say a word to those complaining that this Parliament had no ability to block or amend legislation once it was agreed in Brussels. It was a supranational organisation, as has been said. Please remember that democratically elected MEPs and the UK Government made the decisions on the legislation, not in fact the European Commission, apart from some regulations about sheep meat prices or something. Of course, many of us in this Chamber are former MEPs.
The UK was rarely outvoted in the Council, and if there was a gap in UK parliamentary scrutiny, that was a failing of Westminster, since other national Parliaments, such as the Danish one, insisted on full accountability from their Governments on what they were agreeing to in Brussels. Indeed, they had a veto on what their Government did. I am sorry: do not blame Brussels, blame Westminster.
These are just some of the objections to the Bill. The huge legal uncertainty created will be very damaging. Businesses, workers, consumers and citizens are in the dark. Even lawyers, who might be expected to relish all the work coming their way, are quaking in their boots. The Government have no idea of how many instruments the Bill will affect; there is indeed no guarantee that all retained law subject to its provisions will be identified.
There will be very considerable legal confusion. For instance, no one knows what removing the supremacy, direct effect or general principles of EU law will mean. The meaning not only of regulations but of primary legislation, such as of the Equality Act 2010—already the subject of huge controversy—will not be the same next year as this. As our Delegated Powers Committee says, the Government
“need to explain what is behind the headlong rush and the impending and arbitrary end-of-year deadline”.
Can the Minister give the committee, me and others who have quoted this a coherent reply?
Where regulations are restated, previous judgments relating to these instruments would no longer be binding; workers and employers would be back at square one, and issues will have to go through the judicial system again, with all the length and expense of that process. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, confirmed this in his opening speech, though he seemed to think it was a good idea. If lower courts are able to reject ECJ decisions, this may precipitate more—even opportunistic —litigation by some less reputable companies.
What happens if there are errors, either because the hard-pressed Civil Service, with its high turnover of staff, has perhaps lost its institutional memory and misses something, or if a regulation is accidentally switched off at the end of 2023? Is the Civil Service adequately resourced for this exercise? BEIS has said it needs 400 extra staff: what a waste when Whitehall faces so many other pressing issues.
The Government’s proposed wholesale deregulation—a slash and burn exercise—gives stakeholders no chance to say what should be kept. This is sweeping away the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 settlement which took a long-term approach, allowing departure from EU law over time and after consultation. The Government made a political commitment during the passage of that Act that, aside from technical tidying-up, primary legislation would be needed to make significant policy changes. This Bill breaks that pledge. It is simply anti-democratic and authoritarian in conferring massive powers instead on the Government. The Delegated Powers Committee called it
“a blank cheque placed in the hands of Ministers”,
as others have quoted.
The unexpected consequences of kicking out the EU undergirding of UK law could be very perverse and damaging, with what is left lacking legal coherence. In the field of construction, the Building Safety Act 2022 is premised on definitions in a set of 2015 regulations—the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations —implementing an EU directive and creating a framework for health and safety in construction. Unless these regulations are kept switched on, the 2022 Act of Parliament will have its underpinning yanked away. What then exists?
In employment rights, despite what the Minister has recently claimed, there are many topics for which EU law is the bedrock, even if added to—or gold-plated—in UK law, since, after all, EU law always only provided for minimum, not maximum, standards. Parental leave had no basis in UK law before the EU legislated, and it could be entirely removed or drastically altered by the Bill.
Many of the regulations affected are in areas of devolved competence. My noble friend Lady Randerson and others eloquently explained the harmful effect of this Bill on the devolved Administrations. Others have talked about the consequences for Northern Ireland and for the level playing field provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement—which, if we break it, could lead to trade retaliation. Will the Minister tell us about that?
To conclude, if, as the Government claim, there are real regulatory gains from altering retained EU law which could be agreed with or not, there are much better ways of doing that that have already been identified by this very Government, as others have said. The Financial Services and Markets Bill, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, makes provision for an extensive new regime which has already been subject to considerable consultation. The Procurement Bill brings in new rules on that topic, and then there is the review led by Professor Sir Patrick Vallance to examine EU regulation in high-growth sectors. However, primary legislation and expert reviews require real,  careful work, not a simplistic, arbitrary and ideological presumption that EU law must be slashed. They need Bills to be brought forward asking Parliament to legislate with democratic input from MPs, but also input from affected stakeholders of all kinds.
In short, this is a very bad Bill that does not deserve a place on the statute book—certainly not in the form in which it is now before us. The Minister referred in his opening speech to good governance. I think we would like to see some.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady O’Grady on her maiden speech. She showed what a real champion for equality and fairness she is. I must admit that little did I know when I interviewed her for her first job in the trade union movement in the 1980s, working with my noble friend Lady Prosser, that she would go on to break the glass ceiling and become the first woman general secretary of the TUC. I am immensely proud of her. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bray of Coln, and certainly I found her speech inspiring. I like the idea that she values debate and respects all sides of that debate, and I look forward to her future contributions in the Chamber.
The theme of this debate is clearly about ensuring certainty that avoids chaos. I must admit that reading the Sunday Telegraph this week, we have all had recent experience of how uncertainty can create chaos, and that is something that we certainly want to avoid. Of course, EU law which applied to the UK was turned into domestic law to provide the maximum certainty after Brexit—as we have heard in this debate, laws related to farming, food standards, the environment, employment, financial services, privacy and much more. Reference has been made to CBI director-general Tony Danker, who said that this Bill is creating huge uncertainty for UK firms and risks throwing industry into some chaos. The Law Society said it could see a devastating impact on legal certainty in the UK and a negative impact on its status as an internationally competitive business environment.
Where did we start? Where was the policy? In the Explanatory Note to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as the DPRRC report reminds us, the Government’s policy on repealing and replacing retained EU law was that it would be for democratically elected representatives in the UK to decide on changes after full scrutiny and proper debate. No one disputes the need to consider the status of those laws whose placed on our statute book depended on our EU membership.
Noble Lords in this debate have made it very clear: this should not be an ideological debate. This is not about Brexiteers and remainers; it is about how we make our laws. That should be something that unites us all. This rushed and chaotic process, putting power over huge swathes of law in the hands of Ministers without parliamentary oversight, is simply not right.
As we have heard, this Bill seeks to: sunset most retained EU law by the end of 2023; change the way in which any retained EU law that Ministers decide to keep is interpreted; and provide Ministers with wide-ranging powers to restate, revoke or replace retained  EU law. If Ministers want retained EU law to fall away—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made the point so effectively—all they need to do is nothing: take no action. The decision to take no action is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The 28th report of the SLSC draws attention to the risk of “inadvertent omission” because departments have failed to identify key laws, and to the absence of parliamentary scrutiny of retained EU law that Ministers have decided should be sunsetted. Far from creating new, high standards of regulatory framework, the replacement legislation cannot increase standards; as we have heard in the debate, it can only keep them the same or make them lower. Reducing standards or allowing key pieces of legislation to simply lapse risks the UK’s trading relationship with the EU at a time when we can ill afford it.
As we have heard, the uncertainty is: what are we talking about? The Explanatory Notes first cited 3,200 bits of REUL legislation. The dashboard refers to 3,745 bits. It grows each week as we examine it. We do not know what we are leading ourselves towards.
The Minister constantly states that he is proud of the UK’s record on employment standards, which, he says, were never dependent on us mirroring the same rules as the EU. Well, what is at risk? Why do workers and their representatives remain concerned? The TUC lists examples of rights that could be lost, and we have heard noble Lords refer to them today: holiday pay; agency workers’ rights; data protection rights; protection of pregnant workers, and rights to maternity and parental leave; protection of part-time and fixed-term workers; rights relating to working time, including rights to daily and weekly rest; maximum weekly working time; paid annual leave and measures to protect night workers; protection of workers’ rights on the insolvency of their employer; rights to a written statement of terms and conditions; collective consultation with workers’ representatives when redundancies are proposed; and protections of terms and conditions for workers whose employment is transferred to another employer.
I remind noble Lords that, last week, my noble friend Lord Woodley raised this matter, and he raised it again today: the protection known as TUPE. He asked the Minister a straightforward question: will he guarantee that TUPE protections will not be scrapped? The response he got was what all government Ministers across Whitehall appear to be saying, which is, “We will look at that and see whether it is appropriate for the UK economy and, if necessary, we will modernise, update or replace it”.
That is why workers are concerned. Statements such as that raise uncertainty and concern. I hope the Minister will answer that direct question tonight: will he keep that protection for workers who are threatened because, through no fault of their own, somebody has bought their company or it has been transferred? We need to have those guarantees. On part-time workers, the prevention of less favourable treatment regulations was raised by noble friend Lord Prentis last week—and he got absolutely no response on that either.
Perversely, the Minister argues that the sunset date provides certainty—a target by which departments can look at their body of retained EU law and decide  whether it needs replacing, retaining or updating. A sunset clause is arbitrary. It leads to all kinds of errors and mistakes. The Minister argues that Parliament is not being refused the opportunity to discuss these issues, and that regulations that are updated or changed will come back to Parliament for approval. He forgets to mention that retained EU laws will simply fall away by being sunsetted.
We have heard in this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I echo the remarks that he made on 12 January in the debate on the Select Committee report Democracy Denied? By the way, those reports are excellent reading. I also recommend that people look at that debate on 12 January. The noble Lord said:
“Nobody … could reasonably argue that secondary legislation is as effectively scrutinised as primary. … Secondary legislation is unamendable: it can be passed or rejected but it cannot be amended.”
In that same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, a former Government Whip and Minister, said that
“when laws are passed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, they cease to be just technical, as they threaten the rights and freedoms of the individual.”
He also reminded us that:
“The excuse that excessive delegated powers are needed because Parliament cannot move quickly enough has been proved false on many occasions, not least by Parliament’s reaction to Covid legislation.”—[Official Report, 12/12/23; cols. 1532-37.]
We have heard Covid mentioned a lot in today’s debate, but it was Parliament that made those decisions and reviewed those instruments. We should not forget that.
The DPRRC’s clause-by-clause examination of the Bill is devastating. I have never read a report like it. The committee recommends that, of the six most important delegated powers contained in the Bill, five should be removed from it altogether. It argues that the shortcomings of this hyper-skeletal Bill justify its approach. I am sure that in the coming weeks we will see noble Lords from across the House speaking up for democracy by seeking legal certainty regarding all the rights and protections that this legislation will impact, and for the restoration of direct parliamentary oversight and accountability.
The overwhelming view expressed in this debate is that a reasonable balance can be struck between an efficient process for managing the transposition of legislation and ensuring democratic accountability where changes to rights are intended. None of the changes argued for today would prevent the Government from reviewing, reconsidering and, where necessary, replacing retained law, but Members from across this House want to ensure that the process used to do so is transparent, accountable and, above all, driven by the will of Parliament. We are here not to frustrate this legislation but to fix it together so that we can take back control to our democratic institutions.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, this has been a characteristically excellent debate which I think reflects the importance of the Bill. Before I get on to the substance of the issues raised, I will congratulate our two maidens, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and my noble friend  Lady Bray, on their fine maiden speeches. I hope that the House is a similarly engaged audience to the one that my noble friend Lady Bray had when she was presenting for the British Forces Broadcasting Service in Gibraltar. I noted with interest that she studied medieval history at St Andrews. I am also told that she was fired as a PPS in the other place in 2012 for voting against the coalition Government’s plans to reform this House. With those two bits of excellent experience, she will clearly make an excellent Member of this House.
Then we come on to excellent contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I profoundly disagreed with all of it, of course, but she put it extremely well. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who referred to her choice of “A Change Is Gonna Come” on “Desert Island Discs”. I was slightly more concerned by two of her other music choices on that programme—“Pieces of a Man” and “Burn It Down”. I hope neither of them is an omen for me or the House on some of our future debates. I congratulate both maiden speakers; I thought they did extremely well.
As we have had 60 speakers today, I am afraid noble Lords will understand that I cannot answer every Peer directly. I am sure that many of the points will come up again in Committee. I seem to have heard an awful lot of them in the Brexit withdrawal debates from essentially the same people, but I am sure we will raise the points again.
Before I turn to the wider contributions, let me first address the regret amendments tabled today by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I am sure it will come as no surprise to either noble Lord that I disagree with the amendments on all points. I do not accept the characterisation that these powers are unprecedented or weaken the scrutiny of Parliament. Indeed, as has been said many times, many of these laws were brought into force with no scrutiny of any kind by this Parliament and were merely directly imposed by Brussels. I noted with interest my noble friend Lord Lilley’s remarks on how this process really worked in practice from the point of view of a UK Cabinet Minister.
Furthermore, the sifting committee for the more substantial powers will ensure that Parliament can debate and vote where it deems appropriate. The scrutiny role of Parliament is not reduced but rather enhanced through this Bill. Of course, we respect the role of the devolved Administrations, which is why the majority of the powers contained in the Bill are conferred on devolved Ministers. It will be up to the devolved Ministers and Administrations to decide which direction they take their stock of retained EU law.
On the final two points of the regret amendments, we should of course aim to complete these reforms as quickly as practically possible. They are necessary to seize the benefits of Brexit and I do not accept that this will cause significant uncertainty nor that, if it did, uncertainty alone is a reason not to make these legislative changes. With regard to environmental law, workers’ rights and the other areas that noble Lords have referred to, I refer all noble Lords to the commitments that have been made by me in this House so far—and I  will no doubt do so many times in the Committee debates to come—and by Government Ministers in the other place.
I move now to the substantive points raised in the debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Frost for setting into motion the two reviews into retained EU law that have culminated in the Bill—he has a lot to be proud of—and for explaining the importance of removing REUL from the statute book.
I also pay tribute to the remarks of my noble friends Lord Hannan, Lord Lilley and Lord Jackson for making the obvious point that Parliament will have much more say over this legislation than it did during our time in the EU, when direct EU legislation did not receive full parliamentary scrutiny before it became law in the UK. Had we not left the EU, much of this legislation would be amendable by the EU as if it were secondary legislation, without any direct input from this Parliament at all. By treating this legislation in the same way as domestic secondary legislation for amendment purposes, it can be amended much more easily by delegated powers. It is therefore appropriate that the changes to this body of legislation can be done via secondary legislation. Requiring REUL reform to be subject to primary legislation would take decades in many cases and would see a marked reduction in the UK’s dynamism. My noble friend Lord Dobbs amplified this point, emphasising that the Bill has come through the elected Chamber of this Parliament with only government amendments. It is only right and proper that we view the Bill in light of that majority.
I also commend the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Jackson, who was right to note the majority that the Bill received at Third Reading in the other place and the lack of concern that this House often showed to powers that were exercised under the European Communities Act—another point also made by my noble friend Lord Hannan.
My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising made it clear that there are many opportunities for us to seize as part of Brexit. He is right to laud the success of our vaccine programme and to note, in the same vein as my noble friend Lord Lilley, that Parliament will have much more of a say in regulation that works on behalf of the UK.
I was disappointed by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about parliamentary counsel and their work and approach. He is correct that parliamentary counsel are civil servants working for, and delivering the priorities of, the Government of the day. However, although I acknowledge the strength of the noble Lord’s views, it is not in keeping with the customary courtesy of Members to criticise those who cannot defend themselves in this Chamber.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom raised questions about why we are changing the EU withdrawal Act only five years after its passage. It was a bridging measure and was never intended to be on the statute book indefinitely; we discussed it at length at the time. Now that our future relationship with the EU is known and we have established a sense of legal certainty, it is right for us   to review retained EU law. The Bill ensures that only retained EU law that we judge is right for the UK is assimilated into our statute book.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and many others are concerned that the sunset could be a regulatory cliff edge. In our judgment, a sunset is the quickest and most effective way to accelerate the review of the majority of retained EU law. A major cross-government programme is already under way to identify retained EU law that can be reformed, repealed or replaced. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, a cross-government legislative programme will commence to sensibly manage change ahead of that sunset date. Without the sunset as a default for retained EU law, we risk unsuitable or obsolete EU laws still being on our statute book in 10, 15 or even 20 years’ time, which should not be acceptable to anyone in this House. We do not need regulations on the issuing of a certificate for the export of cheeses that the UK has never exported. Nor do we need regulations that grant additional aid for the consumption of butter, or hundreds of other obsolete EU regulations. A sunset ensures that we can quickly and easily remove outdated legislation of this nature.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, made claims that the Government will need to pass nearly 4,000 SIs before the end of this year. That is absolutely not the case. Our work to date has indicated that the number of SIs would be in the hundreds, not the thousands. Of course, this is still a significant task, but it is certainly not the impossible one that has been portrayed today. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is right that our first-rate Civil Service and legal service are more than capable of delivering the work required.
A number of noble Lords raised environmental concerns, as they often do, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett, who all claimed that this will somehow remove environmental protections. I can absolutely provide the reassurance that my rightly cynical noble friend Lord Randall was looking for. The Government will ensure that we continue to improve environmental outcomes for this country. The UK has a long record of environmental protection, most of which was never dependent on the EU. The Bill will not change that, nor will it change the world-leading Environment Act that this Conservative Government are proud to have passed.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, questioned whether this means that we are resiling from our commitment to food standards, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, questioned what this means for the FSA. The Government remain committed to promoting robust food standards, both nationally and internationally, to protect consumer interests, to facilitate international trade and to ensure that consumers can have confidence in the food they buy.
The trade unionists, the noble Lords, Lord Monks, Lord Hendy and Lord Woodley, have claimed that the Bill will lead to a downgrading of UK workers’ rights. We have had similar debates a number of times across this Chamber, and I have no doubt that we will continue to have them on issues such as TUPE. As I have said  many times before, their claim could not be further from the case. We are proud of the UK’s excellent record on labour standards. We have one of the best workers’ rights records in the world, one of the lowest rates of unemployment and one of the highest minimum wages. As I have repeated many times, our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the European Union; indeed, in many areas, the UK provides for stronger protections for workers than are required by minimum EU standards.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Andrews, raised the important issue of the impacts of the Bill on devolution. The provisions in the Bill do not affect the devolution settlements, and they are not intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments. Rather, the majority of the powers will be conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments, enabling devolved Ministers to make active decisions on retained EU law in their respective areas of devolved competence. The UK Government are committed to respect the devolution settlements to safeguard the union and to ensure that the provisions in the Bill work for all parts of the UK, and we will continue our discussions with the devolved Administrations with that in mind. When using the powers in the Bill, we will use the appropriate mechanisms, such as the common frameworks, to engage with the devolved Governments to allow for proper joined-up decision-making across this United Kingdom.
Speaking of devolution, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Hoey, raised concerns about the specific impacts of the Bill on Northern Ireland. The territorial scope of the Bill will be UK-wide. It is constitutionally appropriate that the core measures in the Bill apply across all parts of the United Kingdom. As my honourable colleagues in the other place have committed, the UK Government will ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement, after the sunset date.
To answer the specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on case law, the REUL Bill does not require the creation of brand-new case law across the piece. The Bill’s measures facilitate UK courts to treat retained case law in a similar way to judgments of other foreign jurisdictions by encouraging departure from retained case law in a careful and managed way to allow for the proper development of UK law.
Many noble Lords and noble Baronesses, including the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, have expressed concern about Clause 15(5) through the somewhat misplaced fear that it means that standards can only be lowered. Let me be clear: that is not a correct interpretation. By removing unnecessary or unsuitable regulations, or by consolidating multiple regulations into one, it will be perfectly possible to add new regulations with higher standards under the powers to revoke, provided that the overall regulatory burden is not increased. My noble friends Lady Bray and Lady Lea recognised that point in their speeches, noting that we can keep our high standards with the Bill. I can confirm that the Government share their ambition  to ensure that the body of legislation is better suited to the UK. The review of legislation will enable us to improve regulation for business and the economy, which I also hope addresses the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, although I suspect that it will not.
On business and trade, my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the issue of imports and exports. I can confirm that we have already modified EU legislation covering the use of export restrictions to manage short supply, to make it effective in the UK following our exit from the European Union.
My noble friends Lord McLoughlin and Lord Hodgson spoke eloquently about their respective committee reports. The Government welcome the publication of the reports and I look forward to engaging with the recommendations that have been made. I hope my noble friends will understand that, given the reports’ recent publications, I cannot yet comment on what position the Government will take on the recommendations, but I will carefully study them and a formal response will be made in the usual manner.
Turning to the many comments on impact assessments and post-implementation reviews made by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hodgson, we recognise their importance and departments will be expected to take a proportionate approach to analysing the impact of SIs. For smaller-impact measures, this could include the completion of the impact section in an Explanatory Memorandum, a de minimis assessment or a fuller impact assessment, dependent on the regulation in question. Where expected business impacts exceed the current threshold of £5 million of annual business impacts, in the usual way departments will need to submit a full impact assessment for independent scrutiny if their change is a regulatory provision, as defined in the current better regulation framework, to which we are fully committed.
I am, of course, grateful for the recent recommendations of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on impact assessments and will ensure that my officials make clear to departments the expectations for providing enough information to Parliament when studying new regulations. Departments will be expected to conduct proportionate monitoring and evaluation of their measures up to and including full post-implementation review. My officials will be providing more guidance on this to departments shortly.
I would like to reassure my noble friend Lord Balfe that the Government are committed to maintaining comprehensive safety standards, as he would expect, including in civil aviation and all manner of transport. Similarly, I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—although again I suspect she will not accept the reassurance—that, while I do not agree with her assessment of the level of scrutiny that laws received within the EU institutions, I can confirm that the Government will not, of course, weaken building safety standards.
This Bill will ensure that we can end retained EU law as a legal category, simplifying and bringing certainty to our statute book. It will also ensure that we can bring forward genuine reform, now ensuring that the  UK’s regulatory system is suited to our needs. The Government are determined to see the opportunities of Brexit and I know that the Bill delivers that result.

Lord Fox: My Lords, it has been an absorbing and long debate and I will not extend it more than a few seconds. I did not expect the Minister to embrace my regret amendment and I am pretty sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, did not expect him to embrace hers either; however, noble Lords around the House picked up on all the issues set out in both amendments and amplified them in a very strong way. The scale of the disquiet over the Bill has really been emphasised in this debate, and if the Minister was in any doubt as to the level of disquiet the Bill is generating, then that has been dispelled. But the extent of this concern is itself an opportunity for all of us to work across the Chamber to produce the amendments and the changes that the Bill needs to make it fit for purpose. We on these Benches undertake to work with everybody, across parties and across Benches, to try to make sure that in Committee and particularly on Report, those changes are brought forward to your Lordships’ House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Fox’s amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Amendment to the Motion

Baroness Chapman of Darlington: Tabled by Baroness Chapman of Darlington
At end insert “but regrets that this Bill threatens workers’ rights, environmental standards and consumer protections; that it has been introduced without a   complete understanding of its scope or impact or what will replace the laws it revokes; that it creates damaging confusion and disruption in the economy during a cost of living crisis; is opposed by both business and workers representatives, including the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress; that its legislative ‘sunset’ is arbitrary and will create a regulatory cliff-edge; that it ignores the concerns and lacks the consent of the devolved administrations; and that it undermines democratic scrutiny and accountability, providing ministers with unnecessary and unjustifiable powers.”.

Baroness Chapman of Darlington: My Lords, I do not wish to move my amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington’s amendment to the Motion not moved.
Bill read a second time.

Commitment and Order of Consideration Motion

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 20, Schedules 3 and 4, Clauses 21 to 23, Title.
Motion agreed.
House adjourned at 10.39 pm.